Get Ready…

The World is a Crazy Place

Bill Stevens – Citizen whose daughter was in lockdown during the Newtown CT shooting. Finally, a sane response from a MAN who has not yet succumbed to estrogen overdose.
http://www.youtu.be/9bCA3yqkMUI
Video 24,049 views 642 likes 2 dislikes

Every nation crashes differently towards the end of its fiat money methamphetamine binge. If America was still experimenting with new freedoms and permissiveness, I wouldn’t even complain. But its not. American are the sort of insufferable Babbits who spend a day at a Groundhogs Day festival, while outlawing or taxing into oblivion every fulfilling and sincere celebration.

Punxsutawney Phil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/feb/02/groundhog-day-punxsutawney-phil-prediction-video

No booze allowed. No free food. No cute chicks. No music. Just a God-Damned ground hog and a bunch of old illuminati yokels in top hats. Even the Zombie Zealot Saudi & Iranians aren’t this far gone up their government’s ass yet!

The caption of a photo 3 reads:
The Groundhog Club ‘Inner Circle,’ wearing top hats, is led through the crowd by Pennsylvania state troopers.
http://www.newser.com/story/162113/groundhog-day-phil-predicts-early-spring.html

Well sure troopers of course. And scan the crowds too. Don’t touch that “service rodent” you filthy mundanes, or they’ll taser and wood shampoo you until you flinch at your own shadow for six more weeks. Land of the arsenic laced free lunch, this is.

America is geeking and tweaking so ridiculously, it’s intolerable. No drinking or smoking on the way Gobler’s Knob, citizen. Wear your seatbelt, no sodas over 16 oz, see something say… hey, is that the eightball of blow I’ve been missing over there by my shadow? Sweet!

The whole world must be watching in befuddled horror, while American Morons run up the central bank’s tab by a trillion dollars every week for the kind of autistic idiocy contained in the idea of a safe and diverse Ground Hogs Day celebration for the whole rainbow coalition of mental muppet leprechauns.

Actors? Check!
Sets? Check!
Extras? Check!

Lights… Cameras… Action!

Video showing “extras” circling the Sandy Hook Firehouse in a loop to give the illusion there are more people.

If you pay attention to what is really going on around the Sandy Hook Firehouse- People are walking in circles, out one door, in the other, over and over again. They also walk all the way around the firehouse, only to enter through another door.

Why are these people doing this? Do they mean to keep leaving and entering over and over again- or is this the same method that is used in movie productions where extras walk around on a loop in the foreground and background to create the illusion of a busier atmosphere?

It is interesting that Gene Rosen appears to have spent quite a bit of time around the firehouse- he doesn’t really mention this much in his interviews though- Who is the man Gene Rosen keeps talking to?

The actors at the Sandy Hook firehouse – Spinning around and around.

@Jay Wocky.

Maybe there’s a way Tinsley is right. If we start challenging the real misanthropes to duels, there will be a lot less people around, and it would be worth it, providing we win most of the time.
Given the time and effort he has put into his thought and his writing, I am confident he is trying to create value, not mindlessly destroy others.
He creates things, which, he acknowledges, are mostly rejected for now. But that’s what best serves the world. Not a bunch of mass hallucinated happy-crappy group thoughts.

Getting to the truth of something is like charging into a gauntlet of land mines, sniper fire, choking chemicals , and unseen micro-psychological mind nanobots.

I know you’ll make it through to where your truth objective lies. And then stalwartly and vigilantly guard your hill of truth.

This is Very Long piece on abortion, but a Must Read.

Wendy Mc-Elroy on Abortion

When I was eighteen, I chose to have an abortion. Accordingly, the question I am addressing here is nothing less than whether I have committed murder. If the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then I am among millions of women who have committed first degree, premeditated murder, and I should be subject to whatever penalties are imposed upon that crime. The fact that I did not know I was killing a human being is irrelevant, just as the state of knowledge of a racist who kills blacks while believing them to be animals is irrelevant to the fact that he has committed murder. If you shy away from such prosecution, you are shying away from the antiabortionist position.

Before advancing the pro-choice position–to which I subscribe–it is necessary to distinguish between morality and rights, between the moral and the legal.

Peaceful activities may be moral or immoral, but they never violate rights. Taking drugs, gambling, or lying to a friend may or may not be immoral, but they are not a violation of rights. In libertarianism, the purpose of law is to protect rights, not to enforce virtue; as such, the law does not concern itself with the morality of an action but asks only if it is invasive.

Many people oppose abortion on moral grounds without considering it to be a violation of rights which should be addressed by law. I have no argument with this particular antiabortion position. My argument is with antiabortionists who attempt to translate their personal moral convictions into laws restricting what I may do with my body … those who advocate mandatory motherhood.

Although libertarianism is often expressed as ‘the noninitiation of force” or ‘anything that’s peaceful,’ there is a more fundamental theme running through libertarian thought. The Levellers in seventeenth-century Britain called it ‘self-proprietorship’; Josiah Warren, the first American anarchist, referred to ‘the sovereignty of the individual”; abolitionists in opposing slavery used the concept of ‘self-ownership’-that is every human being simply by being a human being has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body. The principle underlying libertarianism–the reason it is wrong to initiate force against anyone–is that it violates that person’s self- ownership. This moral jurisdiction is what I mean by the term individual rights.

The concept of rights is key to the abortion issue. Antiabortionists claim that abortion violates the rights of the fetus. I contend that antiabortion legislation violates the rights of the pregnant woman. I also contend that the fetus is not a human being. It possesses no rights. Up until the point of birth, it is not a self-owner.

To say this is not to deny that the fetus is in some sense alive, or that the zygote is a potential human being. A potential is not an actual, however; it is a hypothetical possibility. To their credit, Libertarians for Life (the libertarian antiabortionist organization) do not ascribe individual rights to the fetus on the basis of its potential, but on the assumption that at the instant of conception–at the moment there is a fertilized egg-there is a human being with individual rights.

The essential question becomes: ‘What does it mean to be an individual?” For only by being an individual can the fetus possess individual rights. When defining a thing, it is necessary to discover the core characteristics-the characteristics without which it would be something else. With human beings, you subtract accidental characteristics such as race, sex, and hair color until you are left with the things which cannot be subtracted without destroying humanness itself.

One such characteristic is a rational faculty.

An essential characteristic–indeed, a prerequisite–of considering something to be individual is that it be a discreet entity, a thing in and of itself. Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences.

Let’s rephrase this argument: having a DNA encoding, which is all that is probably present at the point of conception when rights are assigned, is not sufficient grounds upon which to claim individual rights.

What is missing? The missing piece is individuality … autonomy … a biologically discrete person. As long as the fetus is physically within the woman’s body, nourished by the food she eats, sustained by the air she breathes, dependent upon her circulatory and respiratory system, it cannot claim individual rights because it is not an individual. It is part of the woman’s body and subject to her discretion.

Birth is the point at which the fetus becomes an actual human being in the legal sense of that term. There is no point, other than conception, at which such a clear, objective change occurs in the status of the fetus. All other changes are a matter of degree rather than of kind and, thus, are inadequate for legal theory which demands a definable point of enforcement.

Antiabortionists often detail the physical development of the fetus, the development of toes and brainwaves, in order to give weight to the claim that it is human. But this development, by their own standards, is irrelevant, since they have already assigned individual rights to the zygote, which has no discernible features.

Therefore these features are beside the point. Moreover, this development actually supports the pro-choice position; i.e., that the fetus is a potential rather than an actual human being.

One means by which antiabortionists attempt to load the issue of abortion against the woman and in favor of the fetus is by ascribing responsibility to the woman. But there are two senses in which you can use the word responsibility. The first is as an acknowledgment of an obligation to another person. This is the sense in which antiabortionists use the word, and it begs the question. It assumes as a given the point in contention; namely, is the fetus an individual toward whom obligations can be incurred?

In contrast, the other sense of the word responsibility does not involve another person. It refers to the acknowledgment that a certain situation results from your actions and to the acceptance in terms of money, time and moral accountability of handling the situation. When a woman uses her own money to pay for an abortion, she has assumed full responsibility for the pregnancy.

There is something odd and inconsistent about the way antiabortionists use responsibility. The pregnant woman is said to be responsible for the fetus because it resulted from her choice to have sex. How then does the antiabortionist handle the rape pregnancy?

An individual is not morally responsible for a situation in which there was no choice. The consistent position is that the fetus is still a human being and abortion is still murder, in which case one wonders why the issue of responsibility has any relevance. Whether or not the woman is responsible, she is prohibited from having an abortion. On the other hand, if an exception is made in cases of rape pregnancies, antiabortionists must explain how their libertarian theory can sanction willful, premeditated murder.

Similar problems exist in the contract model of pregnancy by which the woman is assumed to have contractual obligations to the fetus. This assumes that the fetus is not only an individual who can contract, but that it was present at the point of sex from which the obligation is said to have arisen.

In a more fundamental sense, however, the issue of contract is irrelevant. Individual rights are attributed to the fetus and the protection of rights is independent of contract. I do not have to contract with neighbors not to kill me or steal from me; my body and property are mine by right. Contract enters the picture only when I desire something to which I have no right, such as another’s labor. Through contract, I acquire a negotiated claim over that person. If individual rights are granted to the fetus, then a contract is superfluous to the protection of those rights. If individual rights are not being claimed, then no contract is possible since a contract is a voluntary exchange between two human beings.
But what if, for the sake of argument, the fetus were acknowledged to possess individual rights? What consequences would this have for the pro-choice position?
The principle of self-ownership states that every human being, simply by being a human being, has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body. Thus, even if the fetus possesses rights, those rights could never include living within and off of the woman’s body, for this would be tantamount to asserting that one human being could own the bodily functions of another … that two people can have rights in one body. The word used to describe a system in which one man has property rights in another is slavery.
One of the concepts upon which ‘rights” rest, from which the word derives meaning, is the concept of ‘a natural harmony of interest.” This does not mean that all men feel benevolence toward each other and their desires never come into conflict. It means that the exercise of my self-ownership, my rights, in no way violates the similar exercise of your rights. My right to believe in God does not conflict with your right to be an atheist. If it did conflict, it could not be an inalienable right which all men possess; rather it would be a privilege which I possessed at your expense. Two fundamental characteristics of individual rights are that all human beings have them and that they do not conflict.
Imagine a world in which the act of swallowing a pill murdered another human being. In what sense could I claim the right to swallow? On the other hand, in what sense could I claim the right to my own body when I cannot properly control what is put into it?
This is the dilemma posed by the antiabortionists who grant the fetus a right to control the woman’s body which competes and conflicts with her own right. The result is not conflicting rights, but the destruction of the framework from which rights derive meaning. Unlike gray areas of libertarian theory in which disputes arise because rights are not well defined, the alleged rights are clear and in direct contradiction. The fetus’s life requires a claim on the woman’s bodily functions; the woman’s right to her body requires the fetus’s death.

In Randian terms, this is ‘the fallacy of the stolen concept.” In this fallacy, a word is used while the conceptual underpinnings which are necessary to the definition of the word are denied. Thus, the antiabortionists use the concept of ‘rights’ without regard for the fact that the fetus is not a discrete individual, the alleged rights conflict, and the rights involve two people claiming control of one body. Whatever version of rights is being attributed to the fetus, it is not the natural rights championed by libertarianism.

Antiabortionists often counter that the fetus should have a right to the woman’s body because it is a matter of life and death. But rights are not based on how important it is to have them. Nor is there a cost-benefit chart giving us how much pain balances how much use of force. Rights are not granted or open to adjustment; they are inalienable. And they derive from only one source–the right to control your own body. The antiabortionists are not depriving the pregnant woman of some percentage of her rights; they are denying the right of self-ownership altogether.

The important thing about the antiabortionist position is not that it is wrong, but that it has disastrous consequences. Antiabortionists dislike dealing with these consequences and consider such discussion to be ‘scare tactics.’ As long as the basic thrust of their position is “there ought to be a law,’ however, it is reasonable to ask what this law would look like.

If the fetus is a human being, then abortion is clearly first-degree, premeditated murder and should be subject to whatever penalties that category of crime merits. Aborting women and doctors would be liable to punishment up to, and perhaps including, the death penalty. If this is ‘scary,’ the fault lies not with the person who points it out, but with the one who advocates it. Antiabortionists sometimes backpedal on this issue by stating that, since abortion has not been subject to such penalties historically, there is no reason to suppose they would occur in the future. But this is evasion. The debate does not concern history, but moral theory. By antiabortionist standards, abortion is premeditated murder and they should be decrying the tradition of slap-on-the-wrist penalties rather than using them to reassure us.

Moreover, if you admit the idea that the fetus is a human being for whom the woman is legally responsible, then the woman cannot take any action to imperil the life and well-being of the fetus. Almost everything she puts into her system is automatically introduced into the system of the fetus and, if the substance is harmful, it constitutes assault upon the fetus on the same level as strapping me down and forcing drugs into my body. Moreover, life-endangering acts, such as parachute jumping, would place the unconsenting fetus in unreasonable danger. If the woman has no right to kill the fetus, she can have no right to jeopardize its life and well-being. Thus, if the fetus has rights, it is not merely a matter of prohibiting abortion; it means that the woman is criminally liable for harm befalling the fetus on the same level as she would be for harming an infant.

This dilemma is not just a dilemma for anti-abortionists. It is not avoided by McElroy. She would have to say that she has the right to put the murdering pill in her body.
The only framework from which “rights” derive meaning is the Christian framework. I discussed this here.

Ayn Rand is not the only writer who has spoken in terms of “the stolen concept” or “stolen capital.” Christians have spoken of “intellectual capital” or “moral capital” in these articles:

The Eschatology of Education

Review of “The Matrix”

Counter-Cultural Christianity

A “World” of Difference

If “the natural rights championed by libertarianism” permits a man to swallow a pill which murders another, then that particular libertarian position is not worth anyone’s support.

The rights which the Founding Fathers recognized derive from only one source: God. McElroy does not acknowledge the “Faith of our Fathers.”

The Consequences of Anti-Abortionism

McElroy suggests that there are terrible consequences to the belief that killing babies is wrong. But all her consequences depend upon the existence of a State of dubious moral character. As an anarchist, my position is not subject to these challenges. But they should still be addressed.

She is correct when she says that “abortion is clearly first-degree, premeditated murder and should be subject to whatever penalties that category of crime merits.” She is also correct when she observes that to some people “this is ‘scary.'” But we live in a culture which is so “tolerant” that it ignored the murder of 10,000 per day every day of the 20th century. Calling a person a murderer or a thief seems so “judgmental.”

McElroy is correct to hold pro-capitalpunishment anti-abortionist advocates to the fire:

By antiabortionist standards, abortion is premeditated murder and they should be decrying the tradition of slap-on-the-wrist penalties rather than using them to reassure us.
McElroy, with a razor-sharp mind, raises other very interesting questions, which she dismisses as silly, but deserve careful thought. There are indeed acts which endanger the life of her child and should subject a mother to criminal liability. The law used to recognize such liability. Many laws protected the rights of unborn children. These laws recognized the unborn as legally human. (A link to a list of laws which allow, for example, a dying man to leave his estate to an unborn child and have that will enforced by courts, will soon be here.)

The important question about protecting the fetus is, of course, how will this be accomplished? There is no way that this can be done short of massive interference with the pregnant woman’s civil liberties. Again, antiabortionists protest that enforcement problems are not properly part of the abortion issue, that we are simply investigating the right and wrong of the matter. But antiabortionists themselves go beyond this line by advocating laws to remedy the situation. Pro-choice advocates merely insist that this solution be clearly defined, especially with regard to whether anti-abortion legislation can be enforced without violating rights. For even if the fetus merited protection, such protection could not be rendered at the expense of innocent third parties. The impact of the antiabortionist position on birth control is another unexplored implication of that argument. Since an individual with full human rights is said to exist at the moment of fertilization and since IUDs work by disrupting fertilized eggs, women who use these devices must be guilty of attempted murder, if not murder itself. Other forms of birth control which work not by preventing fertilization but by destroying the zygote would be murder weapons and doctors who supplied them would be accessories. As absurd as this sounds, it is the logical implication of considering a zygote to be a human being. The moral animus behind IUD’s is identical to that behind abortion. McElroy’s questions must be seriously considered, not dismissed out of hand.
The antiabortionist position is weak, riddled with internal contradictions, and dangerously wrong. It is a sketchy argument which does not address key issues. It uses the word ‘rights” in a self-contradictory manner which denies the framework from which the concept derives meaning. Although the message is ‘there ought to be a law,’ antiabortionists refuse to address the question of what this law would entail or how it would be enforced. I believe this refusal serves a purpose. It permits antiabortionists to argue on the side of compassion and children without having to face the truly inhumane and brutal consequences of their theory. Self-ownership begins with your skin. If you cannot clearly state, “Everything beneath the skin is me; this is the line past which no one has the right to cross without permission,” then there is no foundation for individual rights or for libertarianism

My dear depopulator friends,

There is no rational criteria for an individual to go about killing people. And certainly no justification for asking a group of others to kill for you. On the average, you will destroy more product capacity than you will conserve. And now you are someone who, by definition, deserves to be killed.

There is plenty of room and resources to support more people in America. Each man of achievement carries the load for thousands of nobodies. The more nobodies there are around to do the mundane tasks, the more the man of greatness is free to achieve even more.
As long as each man contributes even the slightest of things, to the extent they free up the great man’s time, it is as if they are as productive as he is.

It’s also not the inclination of the productive man to kill his fellow man, he prefers to compete and win. He has no need of nobodies, he just asks to be let alone to pursue his projects.

No, it’s the nobodies that want to kill others. Because they live off the surplus of the good man and blindly lash out for more. They want the stolen fruits of others’ labor and then the solitude to enjoy them as well. Because they are ignorant of the world.

If you measure a lone tree in your yard, and find its canopy to be an uneven circle of 30 feet in diameter, you might conclude that the closest you can plant such trees is every 30 feet.

Yet if you find a dense grove of that same tree, you will learn that a tree’s canopy is of variable diameter. There branches grow up towards the light instead of outward. The same trees have grown up only 4 feet apart.

The trees of the grove are more hardy, resilient, and protect each other. They weather storms and droughts much easier. Having less room, yet a longer, fuller life. This is a tree’s natural state.

The lone tree is at a distinct disadvantage. He is exposed to the winds. He is at the mercy of the predators and pestilence. He will require tending by humans, he will live a shorter, more sickly, un-natural life.

The scene of a deadly mugging:

Cop: did the mugger have a gun?
Survivor: yes
Cop: did you or your friend have a gun?
Survivor: no
Cop: why not?
Survivor: guns kill.

Moral of the story boys and girls: if you don’t have a gun, have a friend willing to take a bullet for you.

It is Very Sad what Happened in Connecticut Namely the
Shooting and the Tragic Loss of Human Life

However Banning Firearms is Not the Answer because if
a Burglar breaks into somebody’s House and they have a
Firearm and the Victim does Not they have No Means of
Self Defence Burglars and Murderers will take No Notice
of Firearms Laws whilst their Victims who do will Suffer as
a Consequence

The 2nd Amendment the Right to Bear Arms is as Important
as the Right to Freedom of Speech in the 1st Amendment
and should be Defended

Hi Eric,

You are a good writer, and this is the best piece you’ve written so far, in my humble opinion.

I thought you all would be interested in this list of “murderous rampages caused by [People on] psychiatric prescription drugs” which I saw in the comments at The Daily Bell, wow:

Posted by MetaCynic on 12/17/12 01:43 PM

Here’s a depressing list of some of the murderous rampages caused by psychiatric prescription drugs. I found this on Michaels Rivero’s “What Really Happened” site:

Nobody is saying that Asperger’s or Autism is the cause of the violence. It is the medications used to treat those conditions that have a long record of triggering suicide and violence.

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Colombine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Jarred Viktor, age 15, stabbed his grandmother 61 times after 5 days on Paxil.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded.

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a.22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania.

Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California.

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head.

Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet.

Kara’s parents said ‘…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…’).

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and ‘other drugs for the conditions.’.

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

If I were a teacher , I would purchase a can of “wasp spray” and keep it where I could get to it in a hurry. Shooting a “perp” in the face would most certainly incapacitate and make it possible to minimize or negate the “bad guy’s intentions.
Just a thought . . .

The mainstream news and the clover-hive are beginning to turn on ‘wierd kids’ now. Next step will be calls to institutionalize (incarcerate) the ‘wierd’ kids if not execute them outright. Who knows what they’ll do the ‘wierd kids’ who are already grown up.

This sort of thing scares me. Most the police state stuff doesn’t scare me because I know they are ultimately weak people, but the collective deciding they are empowered to imprison or kill anyone who isn’t what they declare ‘normal’ does. It’s like those twlight zone episodes where neighbors single out the ‘different’ guy and go after him as the cause of their problem.

I just had an epiphany; I think I see the end-game for guns.

Step 1: Make America hated world-wide for its bellicosity, augmented by its hundreds of war crimes–killing civilians, renditions, torture, indiscriminate bombing, drone “double-taps”.

Step 2: Run a few false-flags–Fast & Furious, Aurora, Sikh temple, Sandy Point

Step 3: Pass the UN gun-ban treaty by executive order

Step 4: Let the UN come ashore and direct police and military in the gun-grab. Create a civil war in the process, wiping out the cops and military. The UN troops feel morally justified; after all, America’s the new Nazi Germany. Time to git’em!

Enjoy UN control; the country, exhausted and broken, is at that point already occupied.

But the game’s not done.

The economic collapse continues; there’s total chaos. What’s the New World Order mantra? Ab chao, ordo

A “benevolent” global dictatorship of the UN establishes a new currency unit derived from the SDR, and “backed” by gold–totally false but convincing.

And behold, there is economic prosperity–short-lived, but the sheeple are so relieved they don’t see it…fooled again. The UN “globo” ushers in renewal and prosperity.

But there’s a dark side–you have to be chipped or bar-coded to use it. Step outside the “law”, and (like Nick Rockefeller revealed to Aaron Russo), “poof!”–the chip’s turned off, and you cease to exist.

Voila–world fascism in a few easy steps, and finalized to the sound of applause from exhausted, war-torn Americans.

According to his video, the fathers of the shooters both in Sandy and Aurora are connected to the LIBOR scandal and were set to testify at trial. A bit too much of a coincidence, eh? And there’s this:

“What about the other shooters who are seen on video being captured?” At the 6:55 mark:

http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17442985-sandy-hook-elem-3-shooters-a-close-look-

Saw the above link on The Daily Bell.

I guess it was a good thing the reporters were asking the children questions.

My fellow American’s: it looks as though we’re being played for suckers.

“… Paragould Chief Stovall is adamant though. Citizens will be stopped and asked to produce ID and a reason for being on the street. “They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” he said. “But they’re going to have to prove it.” …”

http://www.infowars.com/armed-swat-teams-to-patrol-streets-in-arkansas-city/

Faster and faster they burn what I was taught it was meant to be an american. And along with it, their supposed authority.

Guilty, until proven innocent,… if even then. Psft.

“It is the adults in the room – the people who can grasp the principle at stake – that must be the focus of our attentions.”

I don’t know about that, because it’s the “adults” who refuse to listen to reason and understand what’s truly at stake here. That’s why Ron Paul has had so much success with the young people, because they can be taught.

Two points:

Obama’s hypocrisy of murdering children, and condemning someone else who murders children.

The calls to “ban automatic weapons” when no automatic weapons were used.

My only hope is that Leviathan’s death throws don’t kill too many good people before this Empire finally collapses.

Misinformation by independent journalists is a crime, says the Connecticut Police spokesman in charge of misinformation.

When you put the ball in the air three things can happen, and two of them are bad. –Johnny Unitas

When you pass a law many things can happen, and most of them are likely to be bad. –Tinsley Grey Sammons

One of the legal experts on the CNN media frenzy made an interesting comment yesterday on the move to pass feel-good gun control legislation. He mentioned the language in the Second Amendment about a “well-regulated militia” and said that the Second Amendment was no longer relevant because the Federal government, with its overwhelming police and military force, has become so invincible that no homegrown militia or other armed, anti-social, anti-government force could possibly prevail against it. We don’t need to bear arms because no tyranny can any longer threaten us.

What rights we have, goes the logic, are granted to us by the state. And there’s Soledad and the other CNN mannequins nodding their heads and hoping, perhaps not consciously, that their coverage of this “horrible tragedy” will get higher media ratings than Peyton Manning and the Broncos taking on Joe Fusco and the Ravens while Atlanta was obliterating the other Manning and the Giants.

Are Americans, as individuals AND as a country, willing to give up

our Constitutional rights codified under the law of the land,

defended and paid for by the lives of over 1.3 million of our fellow Americans,

for the tyranny of ‘civil rights’ – a subset of our inalienable rights, look it up –

granted by a government which is now becoming our ‘ruler’?

Will the tyranny of despotism, elitism, NOW BE COMPLETED by individuals lacking in responsibility

and bring about the self-administered damnation of our freedoms?

You, my fellow American will and must make that choice! Choosing freedom or choosing to accept the government as the ‘ruler’ and your role as the ‘servant’?

IF NOT NOW, WHEN; IF NOT YOU, ME, THEN WHO?

The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Psa 12:8

In the fight until,
Joe
UCC 1-308 without prejudice
http://www.republickeepers.com
http://www.trsot.com
http://www.defactodefecto.com
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”. Goethe
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” — Winston Churchill
“This republic was not established by cowards, nor will cowards preserve it!”
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

“They sowed the wind and NOW they will reap the whirlwind”

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=525_1355434792

Ossifur John Moody kills Ernie Duenez, Jr., 35, on 6/8/2011.

So did anyone catch this particular story here where they connected the shooter’s mother to the prepper movement?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248782/Adam-Lanza-How-classmates-remember-genius-turned-heartless-killer.html

They’re now using this incident to further portray anyone who preps as a potential psychotic mass murderer.

Stock up now while you still can because the shits about to hit the fan.

INSANITY DEFENSE CHALLENGED

INSANITY DEFENSE

ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Szasz on the insanity defense.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

This is a real KEEPER folks, I am unabashedly a fan of the late Dr. Szasz.

Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

THOMAS SZASZ

For those who have an interest in so called mental disorders, I strongly recommend the opinions of Dr. Thomas Szasz. Would that America’s political office holders had the perception and inherent decency of the late Dr. Szasz.

Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

You guys are lucky you have the right to bear arms, even if a bit suppressed lately. In Oz, we need a damn good reason, such as a farmer or target shooter, and it’s not an easy thing to get.

Just for personal protection? No. The only one’s here with a clear ability to possess and use firearms are the bad guys – police and crims alike.

As some have said already, I would prefer the teachers had the right to carry in every school. I continue hearing the laments of the clovers here saying that if the right to bear arms in the US was removed, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen. Geez, think of all the Columbine’s in the US and often in other countries that WOULDN’T have been as severe if teachers could carry.

I believe in some parts of the world, carrying a firearm at all times is mandatory – sans crime. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I had an epiphany with a co-worker yesterday. I’m shortening it slightly but it came out in about a minute of conversation:

She started off on a “…but maybe some reasonable controls on those assault rifles…” tack.

I didn’t want to hear it; I just can’t take it anymore, we’re too far gone to be polite.

I cut her off–“Mary*, quit it. Seriously. Stop right there–because it’s thoughts like THAT, that got those kids killed!”

“What do you mean? It’s because a crazy guy could get guns!”

“No. The problem isn’t guns, or what kind of guns, it’s who’s got the guns. We have more than 20,000 gun control laws and all they do is hurt people. Most or all of those kids would be alive if the teachers had guns of their own.”

“You want the teachers to carry guns, too?”

“Do you want to prevent tragedies like that from happening? Then the only morally correct option is to get back to individual rights. Don’t you think everyone has a right to defend their own life? And others’?”

She was actually listening; she’s not a full clover, but she was ready to jump on the usual “reasonable controls” railroad. We briefly went down the “but why do they need those military guns” line of thought–and I steered her back to the “what kind of guns” straw-man to point out again–They Exist.

I felt powerfully that I had the moral high ground–and I’ve never really felt it before in these arguments.

But we DO. We just have to internalize it–and then argue from it. I didn’t throw out statistics–of which there are certainly enough to back the argument if it goes that way.

* her real name

And I ditto Brad Smith as to the cause of this terrible shooting: follow the medications.

It won’t come out right away but in six months or so on page G17 of the NYT there will be a little blurb about how the shooter had previously been on some type of anti-psychotic drug (for ADD or HADD or some such). Same for the Batman theater shooter.

There is a reason why the military will not accept kids who were force fed Ritalin by the gubment skools. But since there are no investigative reporters willing to take on Big Pharma this aspect of these insane killings will be kept from the public.

Follow the money and eventually you will find a gubment racket…

Eric said: “It is the adults in the room…”

And therein lies the problem – there are so few adults left in Amerika. The fact remains: the vast majority of Amerikans are dolts. Dolts that are easily manipulated by the conniving grifters running the show: politicians, media whores, educrats, banksters, etc. They simply cannot be salvaged because they do not want to be. They want their bread and circuses and nothing else matters to their childish minds.

We few, we thinking few, are outnumbered. Overwhelmingly so. Do not think of me as a coward but I think the only hope for us adults lies in secession. I see no other solution.

Does anyone remember the “second man” they arrested in the woods outside the school? I’m not talking about the brother. This guy had camo pants and a black jacket. He was mentioned frequently on TV for the first couple of hours….then all references totally disappeared. Can you say “mind control handler?”

There’s a sad sort of clanging from the clock in Sandy Hook. And the bells in the steeple too. And up in the nursery an absurd little bird. Is popping out to say “cuckoo.” Cuckoo, cuckoo

Regretfully they tell us Cuckoo, cuckoo. But firmly they compel us Cuckoo, cuckoo. To say goodbye. Cuckoo! to you So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night. I hate to go and leave this pretty sight.

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, adieu. Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu. So long, farewell, au revoir, auf wiedersehen.
I’d like to stay and taste my first champagne.

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye. I leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye — Goodbye! I’m glad to go, I cannot tell a lie. I flit, I float, I fleetly flee, I fly.

Gretl: The sun has gone to bed and so must I

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye!

Clover (in a typical appeal to emotion): What if those children were yours? Why is it that countries like Great Britain, Germany, and others have so few murders and rampages like this and have strict gun control laws? How many more Newtowns do we need to experience before we stop the madness?

Me: Hey, I won’t stop you from imposing strict rules on gun use on your neighbors. If they disobey, feel free to fine them. If they don’t pay the fine, throw them into a cage. If they resist being thrown into a cage, shoot them.

Clover: Gee, I couldn’t do that.

Me: Why not?

Clover: I don’t have the right to.

Me: OK, then who has the right?

Clover: The government.

Me: Who gives the government the right to do that?

Clover: We the people.

Me: Wait. Are you telling me that you can delegate a right you don’t have to some other group of individuals calling itself government, and that they can do on your behalf that which you yourself cannot do?

Clover: (Some stupid, cognitively dissonant excuse supporting of his illogical pea-brain position)

This was a atrocious act by a disturbed individual and the clover control freaks couldn’t wait to start waiving the ‘bloody shirt’ of exploitation. It is just disgusting . . .

Instead of looking at guns, how about people start looking at the environment that breeds this callous conduct. Divorced overbearing single mothers, a school where it is unlikely that there was a single male to be found. The pinnacle of a feminist society where men have become disposable and increasingly disenfranchised is one which breeds this kind of aberrant behavior.

May the families of these little guys eventually find peace.

Over in China a freak fruitcake attacked kids with a knife on the same day as Connecticut. Are they prattling on about knife control in China? I’m sure Comrade Chairman Hussein is so heartbroken those kids won’t grow up to be dependents on uncle sam’s plantation. Why he is postponing his Hawaii vacation as soon as he navigates that 54 christmas tree maze. It is hard work taxing and redistributing for the middle class and he needs a break. Comrade Chairman Hussein fears guns in the hands of Americans since they will be able to fight back against his and Billy Ayers golden communist paradise plans. The shooter was apparently autistic and on SSRI’s which are known to cause erratic and violent behavior. So how about SSRI control? The rifle belonged to his mother. The local AM station has been covering this story and nothing else since noon yesterday. I’m thinking of calling and telling them to please talk about something else.

http://www.newtown.k12.ct.us/Portals/Newtown/District/images/JLM%20Train/JLM%20images/Main%20page%20pics/character%20tree10-23-12.png?dummy=439

A READING FROM THE NEWTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CORE BELIEFS GOSPEL…

WE BELIEVE THAT:

1 Each individual is unique and has value.
2 Everyone can and will learn well.
3 It takes effort and persistence to achieve one’s full potential.
4 High expectations inspire higher level of performance.
5 Honesty, integrity, respect, and open communication build trust.
6 Quality education expands the opportunities for individuals and is vital to the success of the entire community.
7 Educating children is a shared responsibility of the
entire community.
8 Family is a critical influence in each individual’s development.
9 Understanding all forms of diversity is essential in a global society.
10 All individuals are responsible for their behavior and choices.
11 Educated and involved citizens are essential for sustaining a democratic society.
12 Everyone has the responsibility to contribute to the greater good of the community.
13 Continuous improvement requires the courage to change.

3 Primrose Street, Newtown, CT 06470.
203-270-4867 203-426-7616

The fact the so many seemingly intelligent people truly believe that someone that has lost it enough to commit the worst crime imaginable: mass murder and suicide – is going to think twice when he sees the “no guns allowed” sticker never ceases to amaze me.

To accept this as rational, you must also accept this as rational:

Set the posted speed limit within 5 miles of any bank at 3 mph. This way – the bank robbers can’t get away without being caught by the police. You know – because the criminals that just committed armed bank robbery would never think about breaking the posted limit during their getaway.

Or do these people believe that more gun control – even up to banning all guns completely – will make them disappear?

Do they realize that banning crack, cocaine, heroin, and meth – everywhere – has failed to make them unavailable?

I would say “unbelieveable,” but have stricken the word from my vocabulary.

My argument as I began to see the cries for control for restriction is simple. Restricting people’s lives based upon extreme statistical outliers is not what what most people would call life.

There over 300 million people in this country and six sigma is 3.4 defects per million as I recall. That’s over a thousand people. We are looking at something well under a six sigma defect rate.

Furthermore, people have lost their historical perspective. The Bath School disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster was accomplished without a shooting a single person.

Dear Eric,

Oh yeah, Telefon. I watched that again on TV a couple of years ago. Saw it first run in the theaters when it first came out. Good flick.

Lee Remick was one of my faves. She was one of the “smart sexy” female stars. The opposite of a bimbo.

The TV series “Homeland” is vaguely reminiscent of “Telefon.”

Opportunistic authoritarian collectivist psychopathic control freak narcissistic parasite thugs (left/right whatever) love it when shit like this happens. It is manna from heaven to them

I wonder what they’re going to try to do. “Assault” weapons ban, I presume. It matters not that this demon or mind control soldier used handguns (not “assault” weapons, even by the enemies of freedom definition). Connecticut already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country. And more and more people like their handguns thanks in part to the growing popularity of concealed carry permission slips handed out by almost every state. I know people that have many guns who have a little clover in them. Many handguns even.

I know, how about states letting those who are licensed to carry (or better yet, everyone) have the OPTION of carrying at schools. If I were a principal I’d have no problem with a teacher keeping a gun on their person or in a safe in the classroom. I’d encourage it. Letting only the costumed thugs carry at schools ensures the maximum number of casualties in a Sandy Hook situation.

A quick search tells me that all Utah public schools are NOT gun free zones. I wasn’t able to find any mass shootings at Utah schools. This means, at minimum, that letting adults carry at school will not result in bad things.

One of the first things Oblabla said (before he cried) was that something will be done. Of course no tragedy can ever be let go to waste.

Too bad the cause of this will remain hidden until the public has lost interest. What is the cause? Most likely medications.