Monday, July 23, 2012

Feinstein Wants to Ban Assualt Weapons...

This is what she says,

“Weapons of war don’t belong on the streets,” she said Sunday. “These are weapons that you’re only going to be using to kill people in close combat,” she told Fox News Sunday.  That is according to

So, She opposes this... right? This indicates that these men WANT and INTEND to kill people in close combat. Right?
This keeps her awake at night, pissing her bed. Right?

This is the most terrifying thing imaginable... Right?

When she sees this, she thinks, "My god! A mad man with a gun! He wants to kill me!"

In truth, this is what she SHOULD remember about mad men with guns...

And this,

And this,

But, wait, what is this?

Why is she not screeching, howling, mad with terror?

Because, dear reader, she isn't opposed to gun ownership. She is opposed to YOUR gun ownership.

I saw a Lexus advertisement on TV this morning. The tag line was,

"Because control is the ultimate expression of power."


Saturday, July 21, 2012

Another False Flag Event? You Betcha!

I think so.

First, this attack happened early on a Friday morning, so as to drive the news cycle ALL weekend.

This link is from, via,

Hit the link and watch the video. Money quote as follows:

"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place."

So, our shooter received a phone call telling him it was time. Then he goes outside, making sure his way back in is unblocked, returns decked out in body armor and weapons and begins his murderous task.

No this is not far fetched. Yes I do believe this is what happened.

Next we have ABC news with George Stephanopolous and Brian Ross, immediately suggesting it was a Tea Party member. Never mind that they can retract it later. They'll just sheepishly smile and say "We're sorry, we jumped the gun..." At the same time, we had  Fox News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher, saying over and over again that the shooter, James Holmes, didn't have a concealed weapons permit, nor did he even have a hunting license. (I mean really, if a person isn't going hunting, nor does he have a permission slip from the State, then what business does he have possessing weapons at all?)

Next we have this lovely piece of journalism from ABC. This was all prepped and ready to go before the shooting in Aurora.

Link via

Go and watch the video. All you really need to hear is the first few seconds, "We start with what could be called, Vigilante Video..." It could also be called, successful self defense video, or righteous self preservation video. But that wouldn't fit the intended narrative, would it? Note also the "expert opinion", paraphrasing here, "You shouldn't defend your life! You absolutely shouldn't, self preservation is suicide!" Orwellian doesn't even reach the mark.

Then we have the Chief of Aurora Police, Daniel Oates, formerly of the NYPD, that gleaming jewel of Second Amendment support, telling us all that the shooter had four guns, all of which he obtained legally (I mean legally! Really!), and literally buckets, thousands of rounds of ammunition. I mean really! Why would anyone NEED buckets of ammunition? (Prove to me your need, and maybe I'll permit you...) He also had a one hundred round drum magazine for the "assault rifle"! (A 100 rd. drum? Now that is just the last straw! 100 rd. drum magazines cause people to behave badly!) Note also how Chief Oates refers to the AR-15 rifle, the single most common rifle in America today (such was the 1873 Winchester in it's time), as an "assault rifle". If Chief Oates, or one of his officers, has thew same rifle it is then magically transformed into a "patrol rifle".

Then we have the Mighty Kenyan, ready and willing to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, just in time to save us from Manchurian Shooters like Mr. Holmes.

Most importantly, the movie theater in which the Manchurian Shooter carried out his assignment, was, by policy, a victim disarmament zone. It was, by policy, a target rich environment. See David Codrea's blog at,

Note that not one pundit in the MSM, nor one single politician, has publicly said, "You know, if only a handful of those good and innocent people in the movie audience, or even one or two, or even ONE, would have had a sidearm with him, the shooter might have been put down before he did so much damage."

Finally, if you have not seen the original Manchurian Candidate, from 1962, get a copy now and watch it. Then watch it again. Yes, that really is how it works.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Grow a Set of Nuts!

On David Codrea's War On Guns blog, I saw this piece a couple of days ago.

Then, this morning, I saw his latest post on the same issue.

It seems that now, someone is offering a bounty to ATF employees. The reward is for doing what is right and coming forward with information on corruption within the agency, specifically about Fast and Furious. Imagine that! Citizens are now offering a bribe to federal agents to entice them to do what is right!

David links to these three Examiner pieces on whistle blowers and retaliation.

I have this to say to potential whistle blowers,

Grow a set of NUTS and do what is right anyway! THAT is the definition of Courage! You went to work for an agency which has an unconstitutional agenda and function. You did that deliberately and voluntarily.

Now you feign surprise that the agency for which you work is involved in a subversive activity so profoundly corrupt, that is boggles the mind.

Go ahead and say it. You didn't know that ATF has, and always has had, an anti-constitutional, anti-rights, agenda. The depravity to which your political masters will sink is bottomless. They want the American People disarmed. Is that debatable anymore? You work for them in this agency. You do their bidding deliberately.

There is an old saying I recall which says, "You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas." In other words, be careful who you get in bed with.

I have said this before and I will say it again now. You want to be good guys, as opposed to just wearing the mask? Quit! Swear to yourselves, each other, and the American People that you will from now on, work to support and defend the Constitution, even against Domestic Enemies, and mean it this time! Join Oath Keepers!

Get a real job in the real economy. Better yet, you are smart guys with degrees in something or another, start a business! Contribute to the economy in a fruitful way.

There is redemption, but you must seek it. No one said it was easy.

Friday, July 13, 2012


The parasite knows what "I need you!" means. He then inverts, in a logical fallacy, the concept to, "you need me!"

The parasite "needs" the host. He must have the host off of which he can suck or he cannot exist. The thought of not having a host sends shocks of terror though him.

So, he screams, "I want to live! You want to live! See? We're all in this together! We have the same values!"

The value of life to the parasite may be summed up as, "Comfortable existence at the expense of another. I exist therefor I deserve! I own you, or at least that portion of you to which I may lay claim."

The value of life to the host may be summed up as, "My life, my thoughts, my work, my productivity, my property. I own me!

The parasite dares not to contemplate the fact that the host would do quite well without him. Indeed, the host would thrive. The parasite exists only by hook, crook, or force. In order to live near the light of day, openly feeding from the host, he must have outside force. This is the essence of collectivism.

Sadly, however, the host has already lost this fight. He has acquiesced to the validity of the parasite's argument by acknowledging the validity of the parasite's way of existence.

I don't know how many times I have attended patriot/conservative/tea party events and have heard the same people shout "Freedom!", and in the next breath say, "But I want my socialist security, my medicare, my medicaid, my SSI, my food stamps, my WIC, my AFDC, my SCHIPS...", and this gem of a quote from a conservative group meeting two years ago, "I ain't one uh them socialists, but if I didn't have my medicare, I couldn't have had my hip replaced!"

SO, does the parasite have a valid argumentative position (I exist, therefor I deserve! We both want to live! We have the same values! You MUST feed me!)?

Do we accept that at face value, or do we utterly reject it? Will we live as free men, working together when it suits us, in voluntary cooperation? Or will be subscribe to the parasite's creed, even fractionally?

I have a riddle for you.  Put a drop of poison into a bucket of clean water and what do you have?