The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

You know anything about Oswald having taken a shot at but not hitting some U.S. General, months before Dallas, or was this just malarkey?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with this story, and have delved into it deeply. I don't have enough time to get into the details today, but it is all very interesting. As a quick preview, though, I'll say that the FBI alleged that Oswald had made an attempt, on April 10, 1963, to shoot General Edwin Walker of Dallas. The FBI wanted to show that Oswald was indeed capable of assassinating Kennedy, and as "proof" of this they came up with the Walker shooting story, pinning it on Oswald. To be sure, someone did take a shot at Walker, firing at him through a window at Walker's residence. The bullet struck the window frame before breaking the window glass, and missed Walker, lodging in a wall if I remember correctly. I'll have to check my notes on some of the finer details, but I will say that in my final analysis I determined it is extremely doubtful that Oswald was the shooter. More on this to follow later.

Anyway, you BELIEVE you have figured it out, and know both who the people were who pulled the trigger, and who was behind it. And you, on some level has chosen to assign some of the things you believe the status of facts.

I never describe a belief as being a fact. If I believe something is so, based upon strong indications that something is true, but not being able to prove it as true beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is what I will say. Show me just one instance in which I have stated something to be a fact when it is not a fact. If you can point that out to me then I will gladly admit to having stated something in error. I never claimed to be infallible, but I do my level best to be very careful to get things right whenever I add my name to something I have written. That's because I know that if I get just one thing wrong in my writing, and don't immediately admit and correct that
error, that anything else I have written becomes fair game for debunkers and deniers.

By the way, on the whole issue of firecrackers; sometimes we try to describe something to someone who wasn't there, and didn't experience it, by saying it was 'like' something else; something the other person can relate to. One would have to go back and look at the exact wording of the statements, and see; was the person or people talking about firecrackers saying it 'sounded like a firecracker', or did they say it in such a way as to say they were saying it WAS a firecracker?

As I pointed out previously, the man who said that he saw what he thought was a firecracker exploding in the presidential limo was at quite a distance from the limo. He did hear a loud bang, and he based his conclusion that this might be a firecracker not only on the loud bang, but the fact that he saw "fragments going up in the air.” In other words, his perception seemed logical, but was flawed. At that moment he did not understand that JFK had been shot in the head, and that the "fragments" which he saw were actually blood, skull, and brain matter being blown out of JFK's head. There is no filmstrip or photo that shows a firecracker being tossed into the limo, and while something like a "cherry bomb" or "M-80 barrel bomb" firecracker could surely cause severe damage to a person, that damage would not imitate a bullet wound. Sorry, but firecrackers are out.

As you have suggested, the assassination planners could have thought that a few firecrackers exploded along the motorcade route would have given good cover for the actual shootings, but when you really stop and think about that it doesn't make sense if the planners were professional assassins. First of all, any sound of a firecracker going off before the gunshots were fired would have put all security personnel on immediate high alert. Secondly, many of the people who heard the actual shots fired initially thought that those sounds might be firecrackers. The last thing they wanted to believe was that their President was being assassinated by gunmen. The assassins would have understood this rationale.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Rick

I did not intend anything I posted as being a critisism of you, and if it cane across that way, I retract it. I was just commenting on my take on 'human nature', which applies to us all, cause we're all human.

(moving on),..As you state in the original post starting this thread, you don't watch much lamestream media, (my paraphrase). I do, not cause i believe it, but cause its interesting to see the lies they are telling. Anyway, much of the talk the last fe days has been on the 1 year anniversary of Newtown shooting. What THEY are saying (with disappointment) is that the main change or effect of Newtown, and the resulting push for gun control legislation has been 31 states and the fed. Gov't increasing funding for mental health. And, they talk about Colorado, where they DID pass legislation restricting guns, (actually, if i remember, restricting magazine capacity?) and how 2 legislators who voted FORthe legislatn were recalled.

Overall, I gotta say I take heart; to me, this says that after people 'recover' from their initial responce to the media onslaught fllowing the shootings, and aft much debate around the kitchen table and water cooler, the argument "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" wins the day. Hence, the empahsis on mental health care, rather than on MORE legislation retricting guns.
One of the legislators in Colo. probably wouldn't have won re-election any way, but the other definitely (is percieved) to have lost their offe because they voted for this bill. I wonder if they now look back and feel "it was worth it" to 'sacrifice' their job, and maybe their carreer as a politician, fa symbolic law which most don't think will do anything to save any lives.

And, doesn't this send a powerful message to ALL politicians?

So, overall, I think (even tho I'm not always 100% 'in favor' of everything the NRA does) that gun rights has had a 'good year', and that the simplistic liberal approach to the issue, focusing on the guns, instead of the people, has been thouroughly looked at, and by the majority seen for what it is; simplistic, impractical, undoable, etc.

O'bummercare seems to be the 'gift that keeps on giving', and be making the Conservative argument against Big Government better than all the Conservative bloggers, talking heads and politicians ever could. And there seems to be no end in site. Even the most liberal talking heads are no longer saying "IF these early roll out problems are resolved, in 3 or 6 months this whole thing wil blow over, blah blah blah, and are now voicing concern that its just going to get worse, in January.

So, pesimist that I am, on the 2 main issues I'm concerned about, I'd say not such a bad year, overall! Jim

[rickoff]

As you state in the original post starting this thread, you don't watch much lamestream media, (my paraphrase). I do, not because I believe it, but because its interesting to see the lies they are telling.

Yes, that's exactly why I do watch a little bit every day, usually while I'm having breakfast. I too like to see what new lies are being foisted upon viewers, and which old ones are being redeployed.

And, doesn't [public rejection and replacement of politicians who tout gun control] send a powerful message to ALL politicians?

It really should, but we can see that they aren't nearly as concerned about what the public wants as they are about maintaining the status quo of increased borrowing and spending, trashing the Constitution, and increasing the size and control factor of the federal "Government."

O'bummercare seems to be the 'gift that keeps on giving', and be making the Conservative argument against Big Government better than all the Conservative bloggers, talking heads and politicians ever could. And there seems to be no end in site. Even the most liberal talking heads are no longer saying "IF these early roll out problems are resolved, in 3 or 6 months this whole thing wil blow over, blah blah blah, and are now voicing concern that its just going to get worse, in January.

Yes, ObummerCare has proved to be at least a temporary stumbling block to the socialist leftist progressive agenda, and more so because of Barry's lies than anything else. Even the left leaning Politifact website has come out declaring Barry's lie about keeping your insurance and doctor, if you like them, as being the "Lie of the Year."

As to Conservatives, unfortunately there are darned few of them to be found in Washington. The GOP likes to promote the idea that they are a conservative party, but that is now very far from the truth. If they were true Conservatives then they would be embracing the TEA Party members that brought back conservative ideals and gave the Republican party a new chance at doing right by the American People, and the Constitution, after the 2010 elections. Instead, both House and Senate establishment Republicans have not only turned their backs on TEA Party Conservatives, but have now made it clear that they will do everything possible to fill their seats with status quo establishment Republicans at each election. This means, of course, that they will spend huge amounts from campaign coffers to unseat current TEA Party backed Congress members, as well as to defeat any TEA Party contenders who aim to dethrone RINO Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. To my thinking, this tactic may just end up causing the GOP to lose control of the House, as well as to lose more Senate seats. If the GOP would instead get behind true Conservatives and embrace the TEA Party then I believe they would see significant wins in 2014, but at the moment it looks as though the GOP either doesn't understand this (which doesn't seem likely) or just doesn't care. Ramrodding through the disgusting 10 year "Budget Deal," while strongly and publicly dissing all TEA Party caucus members who had opposed it, amounts to nothing less than the GOP hierarchy waging war on the TEA Party and all the People who support and agree with TEA Party ideals of reduced taxation and government spending, reduced government control and interference in our lives, and commitment to the Constitution with true liberty and justice for all.

With the GOP openly declaring war against TEA Party caucus members, TEA Party supported candidates for election in 2014, and TEA Party voters, I see this as the time for the TEA Party to either stand up to the GOP and demand that they back and promote Conservative TEA Party backed candidates in 2014, or split from the GOP and make the TEA Party a registered independent party with its own People chosen candidates.

[rickoff]

An idea thought of long ago

It has been said that Thomas Edison's greatest invention may well have been one that he developed around 1921, and which has nothing to do with the many inventions that we think of when we hear his name mentioned. Edison was disgusted by the corrupt banking cartel which had taken over control of our nation's financial system through establishment of the Federal Reserve. He envisioned a different system which would exclude the banksters and their highfaluting banking establishments. Edison envisioned a new system wherein no one person or group of people would have ownership of the system or control over any other individuals or groups, and where any type of monetary transaction could be made at no cost to the transactor. Sounds like a great thing, doesn't it? The problem with this, of course, was that the banksters weren't about to let Edison develop his idea and put this system into common usage for the benefit of the public, as it would have been the banksters demise.

The good news is that Edison's idea was revived in 2009, and set up as an international monetary system. All transactions are verified and secured by a decentralized peer-to-peer network, and the standard unit of monetary value is called the "Bitcoin." Currently, 25 new Bitcoin (BTC) are issued every 10 minutes, but the rate of BTC creation will be halved every four years until there is a maximum of 21 million BTC. Currently there are about 12 million Bitcoins in existence. The value of one BTC has steadily and dramatically increased against the value of all central banking currencies since the Bitcoin was introduced, and is currently valued at $850 US dollars. For small transactions, a subunit called the 'satoshi' was introduced, and this equates to .000000001, or one ten-millionth of a BTC.
It would seem that this would require that each user of the Bitcoin system would be required to deal with huge numbers of satoshi coins in order to make a common everyday transaction such as purchasing a newspaper or a cup of coffee, since currently one satoshi would equal 8.5/1,000 of a cent. Therefore, purchasing either of these items (currently costing around 1 US dollar, would require about 11,765 satoshi coins. Imagine counting that out of your pocket change and laying it on the counter! Of course that would be absurd, but with the Bitcoin technology this all becomes quite simple, since the transaction is simply a computer generated one. There is no need for members to have physical possession of any monetary object. A Bitcoin "wallet" can be used at stores which accept Bitcoin transactions, and there is now a large and growing number of merchants which do accept the Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, there are now 26 US cities where the Bitcoin can be used for nearly any type of purchase or bill payment.

The Bitcoin "wallet" is a digitized wallet, or account, where a user has private access to their balance, and where the user can also generate a "public" code that others can utilize to send that user a gift or payment. The Bitcoin wallet can be accessed on a home or office computer, or on a mobile device such as a smartphone or I-Pad. To get into the system, one would purchase Bitcoins or satoshi, equivalent to the current value of US dollars or any other world currency, at a Bitcoin "exchange." At any time, the member's account value can be cashed out at an exchange for any amount of currency up to the full current value of the account. There are no mandatory fees imposed for completing transactions, however a member can elect to pay a small and reasonable fee for speeding up a transaction if that is desired. Without that speed-up service, a transaction could take as long as 10 minutes to be verified, but of course that wouldn't be an inconvenience if you were ordering something to be delivered to your home, or purchasing something that you would be picking up at another location later in the day. Currently there are about 1,000 "brick and mortar" businesses, and 20,000 online merchants, that are willing to accept Bitcoin purchases and that number is growing.

While there is a lot that is very good about the Bitcoin system, there have also been some notable drawbacks. One of those is the fact that in a research study of 40 Bitcoin exchanges, 18 had ended up closing over a period of three years, and currently if the exchange you purchased your Bitcoins from is one that closes then your Bitcoin wallet vanishes with it. A change needs to be implemented so that a user's "wallet" exists only on the user's computer or mobile device, and is independent of an "exchange." To do that, though, there must be another means of buying and selling Bitcoins, and guaranteeing transaction acceptors are paid. It would almost seem that the only way to do this would be through a centralized exchange which acts much like a central bank. The other main drawback is that regulators and the IRS are zeroing in on Bitcoin operations in order to gain control of, and reap fortunes from, the surge in Bitcoin popularity and value. Regulators complain that Bitcoins are being used mainly for gambling at online gaming sites, and for illegal and anonymous drug purchases. Just last month, the FBI shut down a lucrative online drug site called Silk Road, where roughly 10% of all Bitcoins were being spent, and it is reported that 50% of all Bitcoins spent in 2013 were spent at a single online gaming website. These activities poise the question as to whether or not Bitcoin usage can somehow be effectively regulated internally by the Bitcoin user network to halt illegal activities, and whether any external agency should have any degree of control over the network. Perhaps the only way to resolve these issues favorably would be to have private networks rather than public ones.

The Bitcoin idea has certainly been an interesting concept which attempted to put Edison's idea to good use in a way that Edison could not have envisioned in his day. Like all other activities accomplished on the Internet, though, the Bitcoin became ripe for harvesting of information and profits by hackers and fraudsters, which has not been much better than the position people were in when doing business with the banksters. The one distinct advantage over dealing with banking institutions which has made the risk worthwhile to investors is that the surge in Bitcoin value, from $32 in January 2013 to more than $1,000 in November, is a single year gain of more than 30 times the original investment.

For more info on Bitcoins, see this 1 minute, 44 second video clip.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

As we've discussed before, while the 'Tea party' IS 'something new', this underlieing war in the Republican party is OLD; its Goldwater vs. Rockeeller all over again; and the 'mainstream' party leaders and party activists will do whatever they have to, to retain control of the party.
In addition to what you have said, I'm sure we will see the same kind of 'dirty tricks' in primaries, that we saw during the last Presidential primaries. All sorts of shenanigans, ballot stuffing, (remember the lights out trick?), discounting caucus results, etc. THIS time, instead of insuring Romoney gets the nomination rather than Ron Paul, it will be to get 'mainstream' candidates into Congress, and get rid of Tea Party candidates.

IF the Tea Party goes out on its own, it will encounter the same problem Perot's party encountered; having the 2 mainstream parties BOTH pulling out all the stops, all dirty tricks etc. in order to shut it down. Its HARD to form and grow a new party, when BOTH the 'old, established' parties are doing everything they can to undermine your credibility.Jim

[rickoff]

IF the Tea Party goes out on its own, it will encounter the same problem Perot's party encountered; having the 2 mainstream parties BOTH pulling out all the stops, all dirty tricks etc. in order to shut it down. Its HARD to form and grow a new party, when BOTH the 'old, established' parties are doing everything they can to undermine your credibility.Jim

That's right, Jim, it definitely would be made tough as all getout for the TEA Party if they become a real party competing against Democrat and Republican establishment interests. Both parties will vilify them to no end, and the lamestream media will will do the same. Still, they have nothing to lose by trying, and could end up gaining the respect and votes of the multitudes who are fed up with Congress and are smart enough to understand what is going on. The GOP needs six new Republican seats to take over the Senate in 2014, and there's no way they will get those seats unless TEA Party backed true Conservatives are the Republican candidates. Boehner, Karl Rove, and other top echelon GOP'ers should have enough brains to understand this, and yet they don't seem to. So if it is going to be war against the TEA Party, they will end up cutting their own throat. We have to keep in mind that while only 1/3 of the Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2014, all of the House seats will be available. Democrats may end up being the TEA Party's best alliance, because they will show up at primaries to vote for the TEA Party candidate thinking that this is their best chance of removing incumbent establishment Republicans from office and make way for electing a Democrat. Anyways, with the GOP having already waged war on the TEA Party and other Conservative groups, the TEA Party must respond in like manner or be relegated to the back pages of history.

[rickoff]

A while back I posted mention of the Life Straw, a personal sized water filter which can turn even the most brackish and toxic water into clean and healthy drinking water. Just thought I would mention that they also manufacture a family size Life Straw device which weighs just 2 pounds but is capable of filtering and producing up to 4,755 gallons of clean drinking water for a family, at the rate of 9 to 12 liters per hour. These normally sell for about $90.00, but are currently available at 40% off if you enter the coupon code "WND40" at this website. This could end up being your most important purchase of 2013, and what better Christmas gift could you possibly hope for, or give to your family. When chaos hits, utilities go down, and tough times suddenly arrive, this could easily become your greatest asset, and prove to be a lifesaver. You can go without food for quite some time if you have to, but can only last a few days at most without water.

[dutchdivco]

On politics

"Those who don't study and learn from their history, are doomed to repeat it."
We've got the Barry Goldwater scenario, and the Reagan scenario. Talking about the Tea party, here. Both of these were instances where a candidate (for president) was able to mount a grass-roots insurgency, and tried to wrest control of the repub party AWAY from the mainstream repubs who are more focused on Business interests. B.G. managed to get the nomination, but the party mainstreamers 'shot him down', in the case of RR, he succeded.

In part, Reagan succeded because of 'Reagan Dems'; it occurs to me in recent politics, that there are a # of areas where the 'occupy' movement, (remember them?) was saying many of the same things as the Tea party; objections to the bailout, etc. IF a candidate, whether for Congress or the Whitehouse, could 'tap into' both the Tea Party and the 'Occupy' sentiment, so that many Dems who are disatisfied with the mainstrream Dem party could be 'peeled off', such a Candidate might have a shot.

On the life straw, I couldn't agree more. In the recent disaster in the Phillipines, the MAIN problem was WATER; it was everywhere, as a result of the Typhoon, but unsafe to drink. As people get thirsty, they reach a point where they drink it, even if they KNOW its unhealthy. If every person, or even the majority had lifestraws, the problem would have been much less severe. in fact, instead of transporting water to the people, they should have been dropping them lifestraws, from helicopters, etc.

Quite often in these disasters, Phillipines, Haiti, Catrina, floods in Colo., more people die in the aftermath, than in the original disaster. And its ALL about water; initially, way too much, as in flooding, walls of water rushing down the street. And SOME people are killed/injured from the unbelievable force of the water. In the aftermath, as I said, there is water everywhere, but its contaminated with everything thats stored in underground tanks, such as petroleum products, and sewage. Dead animals and people contribute as well.

If your only going to do one thing, I would say the lifestraw would be it. Additional things would be ways to store water, and ways to navigate thru it; the 'bladders' that you can buy, fairly cheap, which you can put in your bathtub, and fill with water, etc. And, you can buy inflatable boats on craigslist as well, (for 'navigating' thru such contaminated water). Sportsmans guide has wetsuits, (new) for around $70. Here;
Men's Guide Gear Full Wetsuit - 1162320, Wet Suits at Sportsman's Guide (temporarily out of stock).
They might not be of the quality you would want for regular 'skindiving', but should be good for keeping the yuck stuff in the water away from your skin. In addition, they would provide some all over protection against getting battered from the kind of detrius floating around in the water, and against the cold, afterwards, when many have lost their shelter.

In the Southwest, we're seeing flooding in areas one wouldn't expect; in the mountains,and away from 'floodplains'; as a result of the forest fires, which remove all the vegetation. So, just cause you don't live in a 'floodplain', doesn't mean you are 'safe' from flooding, is the point.Jim

[Farmhand]

Then there is the problem of getting killed for your life straw, or having to fight
to keep it, the problem will always be those who want to take what others have
and don't care what they do to get it or what happens to their victims.

If you have a life straw and others don't, hide it or risk losing it.

Yes they should have dropped life straws to the people after the Phillipines disaster. I agree.

But I seen some footage of people standing in the rain asking other people for
water. OMG, get a container from the rubble and rinse it out then catch some
rain water with it and drink that.

As soon as the storm passed and people realized there would be no running
water they should have begun to catch rain water for drinking. Show the kids
how to do it and while the adults are working to help others the kids can
catch water.

Start a fire and begin to distill water. Everyone should have a still and keep it
in a place where it will not blow away, (maybe in a hole). A stainless steel still
of 8 liters goes for about $100.00 on ebay.

If ever there is a proper catastrophe after which no help comes from
anywhere, who will people ask for help. People need to forget about the
government helping them, if someone comes to help then all well and good, I
don't base my plans on getting help. I base my plans on not getting any help,
and in fact avoiding problems with unprepared people is one major problem.

People won't come after things if they do not know they exist.

...

[5150]

@ Rick,

The bitcoin thing is really interesting to me and like many I am watching it from a distance just waiting until the government shuts it completely down.

I am sure it would properly work and be of great value but like every other thing out there the government has to control it and make money off the people, therefore these things get shut down fast instead of praised for the innovation they are and out to task.

@ Farmhand,

The life straw is a perfect example of people preparing and not doing a dang thing. As for being thirsty while standing int he rain and not catching rain water, that too is just the ignorance of masses out there and they should win a Darwin award.

[dutchdivco]

5150

I too am 'sitting on the sidelines' as far as 'bitcoins'. I first heard about them as a result of the news stories about the shutting down of 'silkroad'. Prior to that, I had no idea either about bitcoins OR silkroad existing. In the 'news' story I saw, they DID go into it, a little. They said there are OTHER, similar forms of electroninc currency, as well, and apperentl Bitcoins is just the most 'well known'. They said something about the way they are created, which I didn't really follow, and how there is a limit to how many of them can be produced, eliminating the possibility of inflation. I didn't really understand all that. However, it SOUNDED like the Gov't. will not have an easy time, controlling or restricting the use of bitcoins. Its kind of like trading; technically, the Gov't can TRY to tax any transaction, including swapping/trading. Reality is, its difficult for them to do in practice.

Getting back to survival, etc. I THINK one of the things we haven't talked about; after whatever, (apocolypse?) there will be a certain percentage of the population that will be very like 'zombies'; not that they will be attacking and eating people, but that they will be shuffling around, in a 'daze'; you see the reaction in any of these disasters; people come out of their tornado shelters, and they are simply incapable, (for a period of time, anyway) of adjusting to the 'new' reality. They walk around ia daze. Totally helpless in terms of doing anything to care for themselves or others, etc.

Just something to 'bear in mind', as some of those with this reaction MAY include family members, etc. I THINK this is a well documented reaction that SOME people have, to such disasters. I THINK the initial reaction is this kind of stumbling around, with no idea what to do, followed by complete helplessness; and then expecting the Gov't, or at least SOMEBODY to 'help' them. In every one of these disasters, we see similar responces. Te post Catrina "help us!" crowds. Granted, Gov't programs that foster dependency increase the # of people who will respond in this way.

And, its just something else that will have to be dealt with, after a 'collapse'.
Jim

[rickoff]

Our nation was founded on a principle of religious tolerance, whereby each of us agrees to respect the religious views of others. We understand that we have the freedom to participate in religious activities, either as an individual or as a group, and that we likewise have the freedom not to be bound by, or subjected to, any religion at all. Those who believe in and practice any religion are free to do so without fearing any consequence for exercising that right, and are also free to express their beliefs to others who are willing to listen. After all, we do have freedom of speech, and as long as someone is not being forced to listen to ideas which they oppose then no one is stepping beyond the bounds of a proper exercise of freedom of speech rights. Another individual or group may disagree with that person's stated beliefs, but if that individual or group is not being forced to agree with the belief then religious tolerance of that belief, and the believer's right to state that belief, without fear of suffering consequences, is the American way. Or at least that is what our Bill Of Rights guarantees us. We all know that our Constitution is being trashed, however, and that the Ruling Class intends to assure that our Constitution is completely shredded, with all our Constitutional rights being thrown out the window.

There are countless examples of religious intolerance to be found, but I'll focus on the latest absurdity, which is that of Phil Robertson, patriarch of the A&E TV show "Duck Dynasty," who has been put on 'indefinite suspension' by A&E for sharing his view of homosexuality based upon his Christian beliefs. The suspension had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robertson had said on the TV show, but rather was prompted by complaints to A&E from the LBGT community regarding a statement Robertson had made during an interview conducted by GQ Magazine's Drew Magary. Robertson had been talking with Magary about his family openly being "Bible thumpers," and expressed his view that America is becoming a nation where “everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong." and "Sin becomes fine.” When Magary asked Robertson, "What is sinful?," Robertson responded by saying, "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in saying, "Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

That statement by Robertson prompted the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to demand that A&E either fire Robertson or end the popular Duck Dynasty series, and A&E seems to have caved to GLAAD's philosophy that if your personal views are not in line with the far, left-wing progressive agenda, then you are fair game for attack. In other words, the expectation for tolerance, in GLAAD's agenda, is merely a one-way street wherein anyone who expresses a viewpoint which is not in conformity to the LGBT community's beliefs can not be tolerated.

I have seen an episode of Duck Dynasty while visiting with my grandchildren at their home, and while I have no desire to watch the show at my own house I can see why it has become a popular series. The characters of the show are interesting, lively, and funny. Suspending Robertson from the show is an absurdity because it clearly is an attack on freedom of religion and the right of free speech. GLAAD characterized Robertson's statement as "hate speech," and claimed that Robertson had implied that homosexuality leads to bestiality, but Robertson's actual statement does not support that conclusion. It is unclear whether or not Robertson’s remarks violated any clause in his A&E contract, but if there was no such clause that he agreed to then it must be asked whether A&E has a legal right to fire or indefinitely suspend Robertson. I guess we'll see how this all plays out. My concern, of course, is not whether or not Duck Dynasty will continue airing, with or without Robertson. My concern is that if one person's religious and free speech rights are stomped upon then those of us who hold those and other of our rights as worthwhile of maintaining and defending must stand up and be counted, and voice our concerns, for if we do not do that then all of our freedoms and rights are at risk of eradication.

[rickoff]

The latest intriguing development in the continuing saga related to Barry's "birth certificate" is a plane "crash" that occurred last week in the Hawaiian Islands, and in which one of nine people aboard was the only person not to survive the "crash," which was actually a safely executed water landing which allowed the pilot and passengers time to don life vests and escape from the plane. The one person said not to have survived the incident was Loretta Fuddy, the same Loretta Fuddy who was director of Hawaii's Department of Health, and who had provided for release of Barry's faked but so-called long form "certificate of live birth." Interesting, isn't it, that Fuddy will now be unable to testify, or be questioned, in any court of law, as to her role in the production of Barry's document, or the lack of authenticity of the document. Also quite interesting is the fact that initial reports state that all 9 people survived: one swam to shore, 3 were rescued by a helicopter and 5 by a Fire Rescue team, but later the story was changed. Passenger C. Phillip Holstein contradicted the reports of her body being found in the fuselage. He stated that she was fine when she got out of the plane. Hmmm , does anyone else smell something fishy about the "official" story? I'm wondering if Loretta's "death" was simply fabricated to allow her a way out of this scandal. The "official" report said that her body was recovered from the plane's fuselage, and that there will be an autopsy performed, but if a birth record can be faked then so can an autopsy and an autopsy "report." And if she did make it out of the plane alive and "fine," as Holstein said, but was actually dead when she reached shore, then who had the opportunity to ensure her demise during the time in which she was being "rescued" from the water and transported to shore? Regardless of what actually transpired, it is all rather convenient for Barry.

[aljhoa]

No, do you? If so, where?

If you can’t see a "firecracker going off in the president's car," maybe you can see a paintball splatter on the right side of the J.K. forehead.

As to the frisco kid quote at the bottom of your post, his quote of James Altgens carries no weight. Altgens was a photographer, not a gun expert. His statement, that "if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy." is pure malarkey.

JHP .45 acp vs Honeydew Melon w/ slow mo - YouTube

The smell of Greer's shot was in the air. According to Gary Mack the wind was blowing back east at 15 mph. That explains the Senators honest account. Not to mention the secret service shooting back. I wonder what agent could have been shooting back in the direction of jfk?


Look under 'Beats Fists Against Car'. "The third shot he heard might have been a Secret Service man returning the fire", he said. "The Senator was three cars behind Jfk's, (the white car) with LBJ. Look above 'Could Smell Gunpowder'; He smelled gunpowder all the way to Parkland Hospital.

When death squads are not controlled by the State, they may consist of insurgent forces or organized crime.
Death squad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[rickoff]

If you can’t see a "firecracker going off in the president's car," maybe you can see a paintball splatter on the right side of the J.K. forehead.

As I have already said, I can certainly see why the man who made that statement believed at the time of seeing this that it was a firecracker, because he was nowhere close enough to understand that what he saw was actually blood and brain matter splatter. As to the "paintball splatter" you refer to, that is actually pretty close to what this visualization is, only it doesn't come from a paintball gun. If you examine the still frame image of Zapruder frame 313 as I posted in post #4906, you should be able to come to the realization that the area of "splatter" has been painted into that frame (from forehead to chin) in an attempt to convince the public that the fatal head shot came from the rear and caused a blowout wound at the front of JFK's head, while in actuality the exact opposite is the truth.
As to what the honeydew melon video link, or the article about the smell of gunpowder, is supposed to clarify, I can't respond to that because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to point out. It would be best if you could simply explain what you are trying to point out in your own words rather than post quotes or video links that come with no explanation.