The question is always why, as in, why did this happen? The answer is always hard to figure out. Sometimes, we don't get an answer at all. There is no reason why the questioning should stop at why. Why not go to what, as in, what could we do to prevent another one of these shootings? If you're the gun lobby, your answer is nothing or some crazy idea that if people had more weapons, that someone could have stopped this shooting. Enter Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
"It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"
Louie Gohmert said this only hours after the shooting, probably somewhere around 10 in the morning. This was, of course, before the fact came out that the shooter was wearing body armor with a riot helmet and gas mask on. All in black. So, why don't we just say that we didn't know this, kind of like Louie Gohmert. What if there were more people in a crowed dark theater, while the movie was at a shooting scene, had a weapon. Could they have fired a shot that could have killed this guy that was near the exit? No. The reason? People in the theater thought this person was part of the movie. They thought this was some special thing that happened for this speical event. Even after the fact he started shooting, people were running and trying to get out of the way of the bullets that were coming near them.
And anyway, you're going to a movie. Why the fuck do you need a weapon?
This shooter had a 2 handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 with him...all legally purchesed. He also had 3,000 rounds of .223 (AR-15 ammo and 3,000 rounds of other bullets in his car...also all legally purchesed. The guns were purchesed from stores that were nearby and the bullets were purchesed online. Because he had no felonies or prior convictions, he could get these things pretty easily. It has came out that the shooter had purchesed the body armor, gas mask, and riot helmet all online, too.
The shooter was described, by people who knew him, as a smart person who did well in school, but was a loner. I'm pretty sure being a loner doesn't make you go crazy and shoot people. It had to be something else, but we may never know what that something else would be. He had explosives in his arpartment, he told the police after he was arrested. What he didn't tell them, and what would come to light later on in the morning, was that he booby trapped his apartment, so if anyone were to enter through the front door, the explosives would go off. If you didn't hear it yet, the shooter had rigged some sort of radio or stero system to go off, with tencho music, at midnight and shut off at 1 o'clock in the morning. If someone were to open the door, the explosives would have went off. Thankfully, this sick bastards wet dream of more people tragically killed, didn't happen.
The question still stands. What could we do to prevent another one of these shooting? Legislation on gun control would be a good idea. Of course, the gun lobby would not like that and would spend millions of dollars of trying to make sure the legislation gets repealed. The gun lobby, the NRA, doesn't care how many people get killed, just like they couldn't care about the people of Colorado after the 1999 Columbine High School Shooting and held a meeting of the NRA in Littleton. Certainly, just like after that shooting, much like this shooting, it won't stop the NRA from wanting even more people to become gun owners...no matter what the cost.
I'm no Keith Olbermann, but I did my best with this.
Thank you for reading.
Shydude89.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Conspiracy Theroist Wet Dream: President Obama Birth Certificate Is A Fake!!!11!!
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, has said a couple of days ago that the President's Birth Cirtificate is a fake because of the penciled in codes for the race of a person. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you soon will. As usual, Alex Jones ran with this story, of Sheriff Joe's bullshit story. This is not going to be long.
-----
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold case posse has confirmed that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is "definitely fraudulent," prompting the media and political establishment to launch a frenzied spin campaign in an effort to deflect attention from the astounding new evidence uncovered by the investigation.
The most stunning revelation is the fact that in numerous places, Obama’s birth certificate has had information added at a later date than the original.
The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the "race of father," the number 9 on the coding guide indicates "unknown or not stated."
The number 9 appears on Obama’s birth certificate in section 9 entitled "race of father." This means that the race of Obama’s father was unknown or not stated at the time the original birth certificate was filed. However, the box also contains the word "African," which was not even used as a descriptive term at the time. The fact that the document contradicts itself in that it denotes the "race of father" as not stated but then also "African" clearly indicates that "African" was added in at a later date.
-----------
"The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the "race of father," the number 9 on the coding guide indicates "unknown or not stated.""
That's wrong. That coding (9 meaning "unknown or not stated) was in 1968, in 1961 it meant "other non-white". (click here and go down to "Block 9-Race of Father" for further info on this).
See, that wasn't that hard....or long.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
-----
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold case posse has confirmed that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is "definitely fraudulent," prompting the media and political establishment to launch a frenzied spin campaign in an effort to deflect attention from the astounding new evidence uncovered by the investigation.
The most stunning revelation is the fact that in numerous places, Obama’s birth certificate has had information added at a later date than the original.
The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the "race of father," the number 9 on the coding guide indicates "unknown or not stated."
The number 9 appears on Obama’s birth certificate in section 9 entitled "race of father." This means that the race of Obama’s father was unknown or not stated at the time the original birth certificate was filed. However, the box also contains the word "African," which was not even used as a descriptive term at the time. The fact that the document contradicts itself in that it denotes the "race of father" as not stated but then also "African" clearly indicates that "African" was added in at a later date.
-----------
"The posse was able to obtain the original 1961 coding guide used to fill in the birth certificates at the exact time Obama’s document was filed. For example, when describing the "race of father," the number 9 on the coding guide indicates "unknown or not stated.""
That's wrong. That coding (9 meaning "unknown or not stated) was in 1968, in 1961 it meant "other non-white". (click here and go down to "Block 9-Race of Father" for further info on this).
See, that wasn't that hard....or long.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
UN To Pass Gun Legislations in 'Merica!!!111!!!11!!!
Alex has this article up, it's from yesterday, that is really stupid. It details how the United Nations will ban guns here in America and I'm getting fucking tired of these idiots calling my house and telling me of the "danger" of gun control. This is a bunch of bullshit, like always, and I'll show you how it i bullshit. I'll go one by one down the line on this article pointing out the bullshit. Now, let's get to it.
---------
The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month. The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations. Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away– it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic. Look at all the uncovered martial law revelations: Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions.
---------------
"The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month."
Too bad it's already been Snoped, huh? If it's already been snoped, you've already lost. Even better, the snopes article on this treaty has been updated only a few days ago on July 9th.
"The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations."
Did Alex ever say who these "Globalist" are or is this just a figment of his imagination which he has sold to the people that listen to this goofy shit.
"Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away (...)"
Yeah, you should see Europe. Blood and gore everywhere....oh, wait! So, how the hell is taking away guns a bad thing? What, you'll have to go up to the person to hit him a couple of times instead of the usual shooting from 50 or 60 feet? Shooting someone, to me, sounds like a pussy move, unless you're in a war, of course.
"(...) it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic."
Once again, you should see Europe...
"Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), (...)"
Um...no. The gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina was done by the NOPD (New Orleans Police), so you're wrong. Troops may have been trained to handle protests and rioting but not that...I don't think.
"(...) while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions."
I'm not that sure which politicans you have been talking to, but they can't offically take away all firearms because of the law that the NRA despises, know as Reid v. Covert, that was handed down in 1957. In this, it states that any United Nation law can't bypass the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. I said that the NRA despises this law, not because it states that the UN can't bypass our laws, but because if people actually knew about this law, this type of scare tactic to get people to by more firarms (yes, this type of fear mongering conspirarcy theory works) would not work at all.
(*** Please Note: The next part of this artcle comes from a website known as the JPFO, or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. It is not by Alex Jones, but I will go over it because, for some reason, Alex has mirrored the whole article of "Death of Gun Control" on to his website. Thank You. ***)
------
Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.
-------------
The new book is known as: Death by "Gun Control". I'm pretty sure it's as stupid as this article from the JPFO is.
I'm going to skip two paragraphs because they're stupid.
-----
The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.
----------
Here's my question. If all the people are disarmed, how do criminals have weapons and you don't? What, you can't hit someone with a broomstick if they come in to rob you with, what, maybe a knife? They would need to get at least 4 or 5 inches to you to stick the knife in you. If you had a broomstick, or something to that effect, you could keep him at bay and maybe knock the knife out of his/her hand. You can't be that fucking stupid to say that you wouldn't have a weapon...anything could be a weapon.
"When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, (...)"
You're in the United States in 2012, not Germany in 1933. This person though does have a point. That point is when someone is saying something really terribly bad about one group of people (like Hitler talking to people about how the Jews caused the destruction of the banking system) you shouldn't vote for him. Just the idea of blaming a whole group of people for something that was out of their control seems stupid enough. It's like saying all the Christians are accountable for the Norway shooting and bombing. It's just ridiculous.
-----
Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.
-----------
Yeah, because people armed is way safer...
-----
What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.
----------
"What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." "
Um....not really. The idea of gun control just gets more people to buy into the NRA and buy more weapons. So, you're wrong.
------
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
-----------
So, what did you nut jobs fin...oh good, it's a chart! Wonderful. Let's take a look at it.
So, the first box on "Gun Control" is about the Armenian Genocide which killed 1 to 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 - 1917. The "Gun Control" laws are as follows from the JPFO: "Article 166, Penal Code, 1866 and 1911 Proclamation, 1915" That's exactly what it states in the box for "Gun Control laws". It's really funny, I looked up all of those "Laws"...and I couldn't find a single god damn thing on those "laws"
But, I did find something. I looked up the Armenian Genocide and guess what I found? This:
---
In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses; their houses could not overlook those of Muslims; and their religious practices were severely circumscribed (e.g., the ringing of church bells was strictly forbidden). Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of exorbitant fines to execution.
---
"Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: (...) they were forbidden to carry weapons (...)"
Because the Armenians were not Muslim (they were mostly Christians) they couldn't own a firearm. It wasn't gun laws, it was bigoty and religious intolerance. And anyway, that didn't really stop the Armenians from getting weapons, like in the fight for, or seige of, Van.
So, the idea that Gun Control had in anyway played a part in this is half right and half wrong. Half right because there were laws against Christians, who were not Muslims, to not be able to buy weapons. Half wrong because it wasn't for the whole Ottoman Empire, only for those who were Christians, and even then they got weapons to fight back against the Genocide of their people.
The second one is about the Soviet Union. The "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart the JPFO has: Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926.
I looked up the "1918 Decree" There's a list of decrees from the Soviet Union in 1918, none of them gun laws.
The text in the box on the JPFO page says that the Article 59 and 182 was in July 12, 1920, but then this makes no sense. The only times the Constitution of Russia / Soviet Union were called to change were in 1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977. This makes no damn sense. There is an Article 59, but it's in the Constitution of 1936 in which it states:
---
"Article 59: Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship."
---
It would be nice if the JPFO would just put down some of the things that they say exist and show it, instead of just putting it down and saying it's true.
But, once again, I found something. This:
---
Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.
---
It's at the end of the "Resisting Governance" part.
The next one, of course, is Nazi Germany. The JPFO state that the "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart on the site: Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928, Weapon Law, March 18, 1938, Regulations against Jews, 1938
The first one (Firearms and Ammo 1928) comes in before the Nazi's even rise to power and is in the Weimar Republic years, so, I'll skip over that one.
The 1938 Weapons law dosen't do what you think it does and it does do something that you think it wouldn't do. Seeing that I can't find the origanal text, and most of the website I look up are propaganda for the gun lobbiest or redneck dumbasses who get their facts from Limbaugh or the JPFO website, here's a more independent look at that "Gun Control" law.
---
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichbaun Railways were exempted.
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
---
And that leaves us with the Regulations Against Jews in 1938. That was because of intolerance and hated toward the Jewish Community...so, that's two gun laws, this one and the 1938 law, that forbids the Jews to have weapons. Hey, good news JPFO, you finally got me...on this one thing, only for the Jewish people through.
They also have, on the chart on the JPFO site, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The box that says the "Gun Control" "laws" says this: Article 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938.
I have looked up 1938 with all of that other crap, and I didn't find one piece of evidence that this is even truthful. I can't find anything on this whatsoever, unless if you want to call this same propaganda on other sites as evidence, there is no evidence of this. Maybe the JPFO can find it and show it on their website instead of just doing this.
On the same chart they had the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. They blame the genocide on a law in 1979 known as Decree 12/79. Here are the Gun laws in Rwanda as of right now. The 1979 law, whatever the hell that is, doesn't have any effect on the genocide in 1994. What happened was that the Hutu, which was the majority, presdients plane was shot down in 1994, which the majority suspected that the minority, the Tutsi tribe, was the ones who were responsible. The Hutu had a bunch of extremist who had went out and killed people who were of Tutsi orgin. A war had started automaticlally after the presidental plane was shot down. Maybe someone needs to tell the JPFO to research these things a little more instead of pulling stuff out of their asses.
That's it for today.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
---------
The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month. The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations. Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away– it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic. Look at all the uncovered martial law revelations: Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions.
---------------
"The United Nations’ agenda for disarmament goes beyond the rhetoric the UN Arms Trade Treaty being debated in New York this month."
Too bad it's already been Snoped, huh? If it's already been snoped, you've already lost. Even better, the snopes article on this treaty has been updated only a few days ago on July 9th.
"The globalists want a total weapons ban– so they can kill innocents without opposition from the local populations."
Did Alex ever say who these "Globalist" are or is this just a figment of his imagination which he has sold to the people that listen to this goofy shit.
"Crime rates soar wherever guns have been taken away (...)"
Yeah, you should see Europe. Blood and gore everywhere....oh, wait! So, how the hell is taking away guns a bad thing? What, you'll have to go up to the person to hit him a couple of times instead of the usual shooting from 50 or 60 feet? Shooting someone, to me, sounds like a pussy move, unless you're in a war, of course.
"(...) it is simple victim disarmament arithmetic."
Once again, you should see Europe...
"Troops have been trained to confiscate guns inside America (and it actually happened after Hurricane Katrina), (...)"
Um...no. The gun confiscation after Hurricane Katrina was done by the NOPD (New Orleans Police), so you're wrong. Troops may have been trained to handle protests and rioting but not that...I don't think.
"(...) while the politicians have been priming the nation to grudgingly accept new firearms restrictions."
I'm not that sure which politicans you have been talking to, but they can't offically take away all firearms because of the law that the NRA despises, know as Reid v. Covert, that was handed down in 1957. In this, it states that any United Nation law can't bypass the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. I said that the NRA despises this law, not because it states that the UN can't bypass our laws, but because if people actually knew about this law, this type of scare tactic to get people to by more firarms (yes, this type of fear mongering conspirarcy theory works) would not work at all.
(*** Please Note: The next part of this artcle comes from a website known as the JPFO, or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. It is not by Alex Jones, but I will go over it because, for some reason, Alex has mirrored the whole article of "Death of Gun Control" on to his website. Thank You. ***)
------
Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.
-------------
The new book is known as: Death by "Gun Control". I'm pretty sure it's as stupid as this article from the JPFO is.
I'm going to skip two paragraphs because they're stupid.
-----
The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.
----------
Here's my question. If all the people are disarmed, how do criminals have weapons and you don't? What, you can't hit someone with a broomstick if they come in to rob you with, what, maybe a knife? They would need to get at least 4 or 5 inches to you to stick the knife in you. If you had a broomstick, or something to that effect, you could keep him at bay and maybe knock the knife out of his/her hand. You can't be that fucking stupid to say that you wouldn't have a weapon...anything could be a weapon.
"When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, (...)"
You're in the United States in 2012, not Germany in 1933. This person though does have a point. That point is when someone is saying something really terribly bad about one group of people (like Hitler talking to people about how the Jews caused the destruction of the banking system) you shouldn't vote for him. Just the idea of blaming a whole group of people for something that was out of their control seems stupid enough. It's like saying all the Christians are accountable for the Norway shooting and bombing. It's just ridiculous.
-----
Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.
-----------
Yeah, because people armed is way safer...
-----
What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.
----------
"What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." "
Um....not really. The idea of gun control just gets more people to buy into the NRA and buy more weapons. So, you're wrong.
------
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
-----------
So, what did you nut jobs fin...oh good, it's a chart! Wonderful. Let's take a look at it.
So, the first box on "Gun Control" is about the Armenian Genocide which killed 1 to 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 - 1917. The "Gun Control" laws are as follows from the JPFO: "Article 166, Penal Code, 1866 and 1911 Proclamation, 1915" That's exactly what it states in the box for "Gun Control laws". It's really funny, I looked up all of those "Laws"...and I couldn't find a single god damn thing on those "laws"
But, I did find something. I looked up the Armenian Genocide and guess what I found? This:
---
In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses; their houses could not overlook those of Muslims; and their religious practices were severely circumscribed (e.g., the ringing of church bells was strictly forbidden). Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of exorbitant fines to execution.
---
"Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: (...) they were forbidden to carry weapons (...)"
Because the Armenians were not Muslim (they were mostly Christians) they couldn't own a firearm. It wasn't gun laws, it was bigoty and religious intolerance. And anyway, that didn't really stop the Armenians from getting weapons, like in the fight for, or seige of, Van.
So, the idea that Gun Control had in anyway played a part in this is half right and half wrong. Half right because there were laws against Christians, who were not Muslims, to not be able to buy weapons. Half wrong because it wasn't for the whole Ottoman Empire, only for those who were Christians, and even then they got weapons to fight back against the Genocide of their people.
The second one is about the Soviet Union. The "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart the JPFO has: Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926.
I looked up the "1918 Decree" There's a list of decrees from the Soviet Union in 1918, none of them gun laws.
The text in the box on the JPFO page says that the Article 59 and 182 was in July 12, 1920, but then this makes no sense. The only times the Constitution of Russia / Soviet Union were called to change were in 1918, 1924, 1936 and 1977. This makes no damn sense. There is an Article 59, but it's in the Constitution of 1936 in which it states:
---
"Article 59: Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship."
---
It would be nice if the JPFO would just put down some of the things that they say exist and show it, instead of just putting it down and saying it's true.
But, once again, I found something. This:
---
Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.
---
It's at the end of the "Resisting Governance" part.
The next one, of course, is Nazi Germany. The JPFO state that the "Gun Control" "laws" are as follows from the chart on the site: Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928, Weapon Law, March 18, 1938, Regulations against Jews, 1938
The first one (Firearms and Ammo 1928) comes in before the Nazi's even rise to power and is in the Weimar Republic years, so, I'll skip over that one.
The 1938 Weapons law dosen't do what you think it does and it does do something that you think it wouldn't do. Seeing that I can't find the origanal text, and most of the website I look up are propaganda for the gun lobbiest or redneck dumbasses who get their facts from Limbaugh or the JPFO website, here's a more independent look at that "Gun Control" law.
---
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichbaun Railways were exempted.
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
---
And that leaves us with the Regulations Against Jews in 1938. That was because of intolerance and hated toward the Jewish Community...so, that's two gun laws, this one and the 1938 law, that forbids the Jews to have weapons. Hey, good news JPFO, you finally got me...on this one thing, only for the Jewish people through.
They also have, on the chart on the JPFO site, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The box that says the "Gun Control" "laws" says this: Article 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938.
I have looked up 1938 with all of that other crap, and I didn't find one piece of evidence that this is even truthful. I can't find anything on this whatsoever, unless if you want to call this same propaganda on other sites as evidence, there is no evidence of this. Maybe the JPFO can find it and show it on their website instead of just doing this.
On the same chart they had the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. They blame the genocide on a law in 1979 known as Decree 12/79. Here are the Gun laws in Rwanda as of right now. The 1979 law, whatever the hell that is, doesn't have any effect on the genocide in 1994. What happened was that the Hutu, which was the majority, presdients plane was shot down in 1994, which the majority suspected that the minority, the Tutsi tribe, was the ones who were responsible. The Hutu had a bunch of extremist who had went out and killed people who were of Tutsi orgin. A war had started automaticlally after the presidental plane was shot down. Maybe someone needs to tell the JPFO to research these things a little more instead of pulling stuff out of their asses.
That's it for today.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Ron Paul: If the US kept out of it, Syria wouldn't be in a Civil War.
Yep, that's what Ron Paul states in this second part of the what does Ron Paul think about Syrias' civil war. You might rememeber yesterday that I had written a post about how Ron Paul thinks that the Kosovo Genocide didn't really happen and how he thinks it was just propaganda. So, here's the other part. Ron Paul enititles this one as "When Will We Attack Syria?" Propably never, if Russia and China doesn't stop sticking up for a dictator that is killing his own people because he's own people don't like him.
----------
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
-------------
What "war propaganda" are you talking about? What, the Homs shelling? No, that was real.
----------
This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
---------------
WHAT? Holy Damn! So, Ron Paul thinks the US going into Iraq on actual false pretense of "WMD's in Iraq" is just like going into Libya, with the UN and NATO, intervening in a Civil War, under the real life pretenses, to stop Col. Gaddaffi from killing more of his own people. Wow, that's a hell of a leap you made!
--------
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
---------------
Libya didn't cost that much because we didn't put troops on the ground, kind of like what the Republicans wanted to do to get Libyan oil. And there was no occupation of Libya, though they did thank the "Fantastic 4" for helping them take down Col. Gaddaffi.
---------
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
-----------------
Yeah, why would we want to go into Syria? Could it be because the dictator is killing thier own people? Well, if it is, we should really take notice of what Ron Paul had to say about WW2 and the Jews that were being killed in Nazi Germany. From the Daily Kos:
---
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
----
So, to Ron Paul's own ideas, we shouldn't help the Jews during WW2. We propabaly shouldn't have even faught in WW2 with England and the Soviet Union to stop the Fascist. We should have just let them take over the world and killed whom ever they wanted, as long as they don't do anything to us, what should we care? Let's get back to Ron Paul.
-----------
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent.
-----------------
"Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent."
Yeah, because the Arab Spring didn't pop up because of the opperesion people were under and those opperesed people wanting freedom, it was totally because of the US. Just like with Libya, Eqypt and Algeria and the starting country Tunisia. Wait, we weren't in Algeria, nor were we in Eqypt, and nor were we in Tunisia where the Arab Spring started. How does Ron Paul explain this?
----------
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?
------------
" (...) occupying it and setting up a new regime (...)"
I'm sorry, did we set up a new regime in Egypt? How about Algeria or Tunisia? Oh wait, we didn't play any part in that, execpt that we condeming the actions to put down the protestors by the Governments of those countries.
---------
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
----------------
Really? Because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (starting up the Vietnam War) was passed by Congress on Augest 7, 1964 and was repealed in January 1971.
--------
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.
-----------
I guess you forget, Ron Paul, that it was not the US who started the Korean War, it was North Korea, who stated the war, by over running the DMZ zone and attacking South Korea. The South Korean Army put itself under the UN. That's possibly the reason why we had a UN resolution instead of passing something through the Congress.
-------
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
------------
" (...) we are about to engage in military action against Syria (...)"
If Russia and China would stop vetoing the resolutions, we might actually do something...
"(...) and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia."
What? I'm sorry...what? You know, Gramps, the Soviet Union fell in 1991. The "Cold War" hasn't been effective since then. So, what the hell are you talking about?
"We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria."
Um...not anymore.(?) When did the Cold War come back into play? So, how is Russia vetoing resolutions so they can make more money by giving Al-Assads Army more weapons, a greater threat then Syria killing it's own people be using weapons that come from Russia. Hey, Ron Paul, you forgot China.
--------
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
-------------
"How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border?"
Well, first of all, most of the violence is in Mexico, even if the news states that it's "along the US-Mexico border", it's mostly in Mexico. Second, the US Government overrules the UN. How do you think that "small guns ban", or whatever it was, never became law here? So, there's your answer.
--------
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
-------------
"There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria."
Who said we were picking sides? We are with the people who want to overthrow Al-Assad. How is that too hard for you to understand?
---------
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
-----------
Yeah, who cares about reality, just keep living in your own little world that isn't real.
"Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda."
What the fuck is this? What, you think the opposition people have all the Syrian tanks? What a bunch of bullshit! So, who killed al those people in Homs, Ron? Who killed those 30,000 people in Homs bakc in the 1980's Ron? Can you tell me? Let me guess. It's the people who rose up in opposition to Al-Assads father like it is no, right Ron? What a dumbass!
-------
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.
-------------
Ok, Ron Paul is right about the neo-con thing, but the neo-cons aren't in charge and everytime that the Obama Adminastration does something (passing resolutions and helping the people of Libya and Syria), some douch, like you, screams out that we're taking over their country, yet we don't do that at all. This is not the Bush Adminastration!
---------
"(...) just as we have done in Saudi Arabia (...)"
Um...we don't "control" the Saudi Arabian oil, the Saudis do (Yes we have companies over there but that doesn't mean we steal the oil). They give us oil in exchange for money. You know this, right? We're not taking it from them, we're paying them.
----------
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
-----------------
"Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled."
Why? Wouldn't this be a good thing? Then we can get the military down to the size that we need instead of the bloated size it is now.
"Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Oh, execpt for the Democrats who already got us out of Iraq...did you forget that Ron?
----------
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
---------------
"This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation (...)"
Yeah, like Libya...oh wait!
-------
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
-----------
"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship."
Because we never tried this before...
"We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire."
Tell that to Mitt Romeny.
-------------
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
------------------
Yeah, we're broke, but the rich aren't Tax the rich fat cats already. Of course, Ron Paul would stop all taxes so that no one will need to pay taxes. Have fun fixing the roads and all the other stuff that the Government does for you, with tax money, for free!
----------
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity
-------------
Well, Ron Paul better have a really good jobs and educational bill for this nation if everyone is coming home from all the bases that we have. These guys will really want to get a job and a good education. Too bad that Ron Paul wants to cut things out of this Government that would be handy to do just that. Do you know how many people that would be? According to the number of military personel in 1998, that would be 519,742 people. I'm pretty sure there is more then that, but that was back in '98, so that will give you some what of a reference to how many will be coming home if Ron Paul wins.
-----------
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting – directly or indirectly – any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
-------------
Yeah, he said this on the House Floor. Don't worry, I don't really think anyone was listening.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
----------
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.
-------------
What "war propaganda" are you talking about? What, the Homs shelling? No, that was real.
----------
This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
---------------
WHAT? Holy Damn! So, Ron Paul thinks the US going into Iraq on actual false pretense of "WMD's in Iraq" is just like going into Libya, with the UN and NATO, intervening in a Civil War, under the real life pretenses, to stop Col. Gaddaffi from killing more of his own people. Wow, that's a hell of a leap you made!
--------
The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.
---------------
Libya didn't cost that much because we didn't put troops on the ground, kind of like what the Republicans wanted to do to get Libyan oil. And there was no occupation of Libya, though they did thank the "Fantastic 4" for helping them take down Col. Gaddaffi.
---------
There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.
-----------------
Yeah, why would we want to go into Syria? Could it be because the dictator is killing thier own people? Well, if it is, we should really take notice of what Ron Paul had to say about WW2 and the Jews that were being killed in Nazi Germany. From the Daily Kos:
---
Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."
"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."
----
So, to Ron Paul's own ideas, we shouldn't help the Jews during WW2. We propabaly shouldn't have even faught in WW2 with England and the Soviet Union to stop the Fascist. We should have just let them take over the world and killed whom ever they wanted, as long as they don't do anything to us, what should we care? Let's get back to Ron Paul.
-----------
We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent.
-----------------
"Without outside interference, the strife – now characterized as a civil war – would likely be non-existent."
Yeah, because the Arab Spring didn't pop up because of the opperesion people were under and those opperesed people wanting freedom, it was totally because of the US. Just like with Libya, Eqypt and Algeria and the starting country Tunisia. Wait, we weren't in Algeria, nor were we in Eqypt, and nor were we in Tunisia where the Arab Spring started. How does Ron Paul explain this?
----------
Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?
------------
" (...) occupying it and setting up a new regime (...)"
I'm sorry, did we set up a new regime in Egypt? How about Algeria or Tunisia? Oh wait, we didn't play any part in that, execpt that we condeming the actions to put down the protestors by the Governments of those countries.
---------
Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.
----------------
Really? Because the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (starting up the Vietnam War) was passed by Congress on Augest 7, 1964 and was repealed in January 1971.
--------
Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.
-----------
I guess you forget, Ron Paul, that it was not the US who started the Korean War, it was North Korea, who stated the war, by over running the DMZ zone and attacking South Korea. The South Korean Army put itself under the UN. That's possibly the reason why we had a UN resolution instead of passing something through the Congress.
-------
And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.
------------
" (...) we are about to engage in military action against Syria (...)"
If Russia and China would stop vetoing the resolutions, we might actually do something...
"(...) and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia."
What? I'm sorry...what? You know, Gramps, the Soviet Union fell in 1991. The "Cold War" hasn't been effective since then. So, what the hell are you talking about?
"We're now engaged in a game of "chicken" with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria."
Um...not anymore.(?) When did the Cold War come back into play? So, how is Russia vetoing resolutions so they can make more money by giving Al-Assads Army more weapons, a greater threat then Syria killing it's own people be using weapons that come from Russia. Hey, Ron Paul, you forgot China.
--------
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
-------------
"How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border?"
Well, first of all, most of the violence is in Mexico, even if the news states that it's "along the US-Mexico border", it's mostly in Mexico. Second, the US Government overrules the UN. How do you think that "small guns ban", or whatever it was, never became law here? So, there's your answer.
--------
We are hypocritical when we condemn Russian for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.
-------------
"There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria."
Who said we were picking sides? We are with the people who want to overthrow Al-Assad. How is that too hard for you to understand?
---------
Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.
-----------
Yeah, who cares about reality, just keep living in your own little world that isn't real.
"Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda."
What the fuck is this? What, you think the opposition people have all the Syrian tanks? What a bunch of bullshit! So, who killed al those people in Homs, Ron? Who killed those 30,000 people in Homs bakc in the 1980's Ron? Can you tell me? Let me guess. It's the people who rose up in opposition to Al-Assads father like it is no, right Ron? What a dumbass!
-------
Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.
-------------
Ok, Ron Paul is right about the neo-con thing, but the neo-cons aren't in charge and everytime that the Obama Adminastration does something (passing resolutions and helping the people of Libya and Syria), some douch, like you, screams out that we're taking over their country, yet we don't do that at all. This is not the Bush Adminastration!
---------
"(...) just as we have done in Saudi Arabia (...)"
Um...we don't "control" the Saudi Arabian oil, the Saudis do (Yes we have companies over there but that doesn't mean we steal the oil). They give us oil in exchange for money. You know this, right? We're not taking it from them, we're paying them.
----------
War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.
-----------------
"Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled."
Why? Wouldn't this be a good thing? Then we can get the military down to the size that we need instead of the bloated size it is now.
"Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Oh, execpt for the Democrats who already got us out of Iraq...did you forget that Ron?
----------
This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.
---------------
"This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation (...)"
Yeah, like Libya...oh wait!
-------
It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.
-----------
"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship."
Because we never tried this before...
"We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire."
Tell that to Mitt Romeny.
-------------
Besides, we're broke, we can't afford it, and worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
------------------
Yeah, we're broke, but the rich aren't Tax the rich fat cats already. Of course, Ron Paul would stop all taxes so that no one will need to pay taxes. Have fun fixing the roads and all the other stuff that the Government does for you, with tax money, for free!
----------
It's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity
-------------
Well, Ron Paul better have a really good jobs and educational bill for this nation if everyone is coming home from all the bases that we have. These guys will really want to get a job and a good education. Too bad that Ron Paul wants to cut things out of this Government that would be handy to do just that. Do you know how many people that would be? According to the number of military personel in 1998, that would be 519,742 people. I'm pretty sure there is more then that, but that was back in '98, so that will give you some what of a reference to how many will be coming home if Ron Paul wins.
-----------
This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting – directly or indirectly – any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
-------------
Yeah, he said this on the House Floor. Don't worry, I don't really think anyone was listening.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Ron Paul: Kosovo Genocide and Syria Massacre Are Propaganda For War.
I thought it would be a good idea to do two posts in one day. So, here's the second post in one day.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
So, Ron Paul went crazy yet again while I wasn't reporting on him for a month or two. This time Ron Paul states that the massacre in Syria is propaganda and perpertrated by the rebels that are fighting against the Army of Syria and Al-Assad. And, in the first article we're going to go through, that Ron Paul acutally says that the Kosvo Genocide was propaganda and that it didn't happen. I wonder what he thinks about the holocaust. Yes, as you might have noticed, I'm doing two articles on Ron Paul, mostly on the same thing which is Syria. The next one will be up tomorrow. So, let's get started with the first one known as "War Drums For Syria?"
----------
War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.
---------------
Yeah...what? We don't look for UN approval? What a bunch of bullshit. Look at this article from the Washington Post:
---
"(...) the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval."
The U.N. Security Council opened negotiations Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions aimed at breaking the diplomatic gridlock over Syria as violence continued to rack the country.
----
"(...) Thursday over dueling Russian and U.S.-backed resolutions (...)"
Look, we didn't look for UN Approv...oh, wait!
And if you think this was a once and a lifetime thing we did, guess again. From the UN Website S(ecuirty)C(ouncil)/10403 on Oct. 4th 2011.
---
The Security Council this afternoon failed to adopt a resolution that would have condemned "grave and systematic human rights violations" in Syria, and would have warned of options for action to be considered against the Government of President Bashar al-Assad if the unfolding situation warranted, including measures under the section of the United Nations Charter that allowed sanctions.
The text, which was defeated due to the negative votes of two permanent Council members (China, Russian Federation), drew 9 votes in favour with 4 abstentions (Brazil, India, Lebanon, South Africa). It would have demanded an immediate end to violence and urged all sides to reject extremism, expressing "profound regret at the deaths of thousands of people including women and children"
(...)
The representative of the United States expressed outrage over the Council’s failure to take minimum steps to protect civilians in Syria after long, hard negotiations. She warned that, after today’s veto, the people of Syria could see who supported their aspirations for freedom and democracy and who chose to prop up "desperate, cruel dictators".
----
Yeah, guess we didn't do anything, eh, Ron Paul? More from Ron Paul:
-----------
It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.
------------------
"With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation (...)"
This part of the sentence makes me so pissed off. It's like saying if your friend was doing hard drugs, and you knew he/she was, would you step in right after the 'full investagtion' of your friends body finds that your friend died of (hard drug here) OD? Because, according to Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
-----------
There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
-----------------
"There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas?" Ok, fine. How about the United Kingdoms media. Wait, that's from the BBC (It's a corperation after all). How about The Guardian, the newspaper that uncovered Rupert Murdoch's scandle. There you go, read that.
"It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false (...)"
Execuse me!
---
In a statement, the council demanded an immediate end to the violence and said Libya's rulers had to "address the legitimate demands of the population".
At least 300 people have been killed so far in the uprising.
Earlier, Col Muammar Gaddafi urged his supporters to attack the "cockroaches" and "rats" protesting against his rule.
Anyone who took up arms against Libya would be executed, he warned.
(...)
Standing outside the Bab al-Aziza barracks in Tripoli, damaged by a US air strike in 1986, he vowed: "I am not going to leave this land. I will die here as a martyr. I shall remain here defiant."
He also called on his supporters to "cleanse Libya house by house" until the protesters surrendered.
"All of you who love Muammar Gaddafi, go out on the streets, secure the streets, don't be afraid of them. Chase them, arrest them, hand them over," he said.
He portrayed the protesters as misguided youths who had been given drugs and money by a "small, sick group", and blamed "bearded men" - a reference to Islamists - and Libyans living abroad for fomenting the violence.
"The hour of work is here, the hour of onslaught is here, the hour of victory is here. No retreat, forward, forward, forward. Revolution, revolution," he shouted at the end of the speech, pumping both fists in the air.
(...)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Col Gaddafi's speech was "very, very appalling" and "amounted to him declaring war on his own people".
In New York, Mr Dabbashi said he had received information that the Libyan leader's supporters had started attacking people in all western cities.
"The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people. It just started a few hours ago. I hope the information I get is not accurate but if it is, it will be a real genocide," he told reporters.
-----
Gaddaffi did this to himself, we didn't do it for him. Gaddaffi made that speech, not the US Gov. Back to Ron Paul.
----------------
Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
---------------------
"(...) for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs."
Um...Iraq had drones!?
----------------
Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.
-----------------------
"Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo (...)"
You better be joking motherfucker. Just in case if you're not...
Here is the US State Department account of the Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo.
And here's the report of the Atrocities (on April 2, 1999) of the Ethinic Cleansing of Albainans in Kosovo by the Serbs.
And here's your photograpic evidence ( Please Note: Clicking on the "photograpic evidence" link will take you to a site with links to the photos).
What does genocide mean? The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Looks like Serbs killing Albaians in Kosovo is a genocide. So, no, it was not a lie.
" (...) that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there."
Not really. The killings stopped so, that's good. Back to Ron Paul.
------------------
The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
---------------------------
"First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives."
Looks like Ron Paul can't put it together, doesn't it? Ok, so there is shelling first, and then the group of Al-Assads' military come in there and killed people who didn't die in the shelling. You get it now?
"No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details."
Yeah, because that couldn't be taken as, like, a warning to the others if they keep protesting and going after the military people of Al-Assads regime that that will happen to them, could it?
"No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories."
I think the people that benifits from these real life horror stories that is happening in Syria are the people that are against Al-Assad's violent regime, because if it was up to you, Ron Paul, we would just listen to Al-Assad, not giving one thought to those people on the ground that are dieing for their on freedom from Al-Assad.
-----------------
We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
-------------------------
"Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals."
Um...this wouldn't be considered a war in the first place. It would be known as an intervention, which we don't need Congress's approval, but the UN's approval to go and help out the people of Syria, kind of like what we did with Libya. And you want to know something...we didn't lose one guy in the intervention in Libya.
" (...) fast track to war against Syria."
No. It's an Intervetion.
Thank you for looking.
Shydude89.
Explosive Stupidity: Alex Jones Holds A Contest About "Dictator" Obama.
Just a warning, this is going to get very stupid, very quick. Ok, so Alex has a new contests out that is called 'Stop Dictator Obama'. Because, if anyone was a dictator, it couldn't have been George Bush and his goon squad made up of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. So, Alex Jones and douchbags who follow him, what are the rules for this most fucking stupid contest that you have on your website?
------------
In order to focus attention on the dictatorial and imperial presidency of Obama, Alex Jones and the Infowars team have decided to launch a contest.
Taking cues from the successful Obama Joker contest we held in 2009, the new effort will use posters strategically placed in lawful public commons areas to convey the obvious – the globalist puppet Barry aka Barack Obama is a tyrannical dictator who has willfully and continually violated the Constitution and betrayed the trust of the American people. Because a lickspittle corporate media has virtually ignored the significance of Obama’s treason, we believe it is crucial to raise awareness with a new poster campaign.
----------------
Don't worry, it will get worse then this. Let's take a look over this paragraph.
" (...) the globalist puppet Barry aka Barack Obama is a tyrannical dictator who has willfully and continually violated the Constitution (...)"
When did he violate the Constitution? Oh, I think I know what Alex Jones is talking about. That time we went into Pakistan and killed Osama Bin Laden and when we put drones in the air in Yemen to go after the Al-Qaeda nutjobs and we killed that propaganda douch, Anwar Al-Awalki, who puts out magizine, called Inspire, trying inspiring muslims to become home-grown terrorist. Oh, and just because Anwar Al-Awalki is an American citizen doesn't mean we can't go after him. He is considered a terrorist and promoting terrorism with his magazine.
"Because a lickspittle corporate media has virtually ignored the significance of Obama’s treason (...)"
If that's "treason" to Alex, then I call bullshit. Anyway, there was much more treason during Bush's Adminastration, what with the lieing to Congress and to the American people.
"(...) we believe it is crucial to raise awareness with a new poster campaign."
Well, atleast you're doing something other then screaming that "9/11 was an inside job" all god damn day.
Then after that we have two videos that I'm not going to go over but you can certainly see them on the website. I think this contest is over but I'm not sure. It already has the 1st place winner, Youtube name nfcjosh. The second place winner was Youtube name ra2day. So, congrats on winning $5,000 and $1,000, you fucking fascist dickheads. Here's more of the contest crap.
----------
Win $5,000 by producing a poster and a video of its placement in a lawful public commons area. The poster must stress the tyranny of Obama and include the Infowars.com web address.
An example would be Obama festooned with a Hitler mustache or a likewise resemblance of classic totalitarian posterage (Mao or Stalin, for example). However, the sky’s the limit and we encourage you to get creative and come up with your own motif.
------------
"An example would be Obama festooned with a Hitler mustache or a likewise resemblance of classic totalitarian posterage (...)"
A Hitler mustache? On Presdient Obama? No, I think that type of thing should be reserved for Alex Jones. Alex has his own SS force (Infowarriors) who listen to his show like he's the Fuhrer.
Let's see what else Alex, the Fuhrer of Infowars, has to say next...
-------
Alex has suggested the following cues to get you started: Rat Dictator Obama, Dictator Scum, Murdering Dictator, etc. Concentrate on Obama’s crimes and you’ll find the appropriate message. We’d like to see the posters provide specific details on how Obama has become a dictator, for instance his signing of the NDAA and issuing numerous executive orders.
------------
"Alex has suggested the following cues to get you started: Rat Dictator Obama, Dictator Scum, Murdering Dictator, etc."
Hey Alex...Fuck you. You know why? You didn't do this with George Bush, did you? Oh, shit, you kind of did, but you didn't go this far.
"(...) provide specific details on how Obama has become a dictator, for instance his signing of the NDAA (...)"
Yeah, well, President Obama may have signed the NDAA bill, but at least he didn't come up with it...
---
From Justia.com : (This paragraph appers 7 paragraphs down)
It was President George W. Bush, together with Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of other senior Bush administration officials who took the most radical and important steps toward establishing indefinite detention without trial as a mainstay of the US approach to fighting terrorism. But the Bush administration, preferring to act unilaterally, did not even bother to seek congressional sanction for its indefinite detention schemes. It established Guantanamo on its own, held American citizens without charge in the absence of a legislative mandate to do so, and fought judicial oversight tooth and nail.
----
So, what happened when this happened? You want to know what happened? Nothing. No one cared. No one cared that their rights were taken away by George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeild. Well, that isn't really true. Liberals made the biggest rebel yell about these things, protesting, and talking about what George Bush did, including the Abu Ghraib prision scandle, but the Republicans and the Religious Holier-Then -Thou Right couldn't care. So, we could have stopped it, but no one cared, execpt for the liberals.
Ok, what else do we need to know Alex?
------
You can create your own poster or use ours.
Please remember to abide by all local ordinances when displaying your posters. A good rule of thumb is to post them in entertainment, eatery and bar areas where other posters may be posted.
This is a package deal and the video presentation and its overall aesthetics and dynamic content are as equally important as the graphical impact of the poster and its message.
Phase One is on a tight schedule. All video entries must be on YouTube or a similar video hosting platform by Friday, June 22, at midnight CST. Alex will announce the winner on Monday’s Infowars Nightly News streamed on PrisonPlant.tv 7pm Central.
--------
Oh, damn we missed this one...but...
----
Phase Two
Same deal as above, but with a more expansive time-frame. The winner of this phase of the contest will receive a whopping $10,000. The deadline is July 6, 2012, at midnight CST.
We can’t emphasize how important this contest is with a lackadaisical Congress and a compliant corporate media that either completely ignores Obama’s treachery or criminally glosses over it.
Entries and winner of the Phase 1 contest will be eligible for the Phase 2 contest as well.
-------
Oh damn, we missed this one too, but there are video with who won and two posters that show President Obama with a Hitler mustache with the words "DICTATOR SCUM" on the poster above and below the Presidents face. And another with "MURDERING DICTATOR" with President Obama with red glowing eyes. And, of course, the thrid one which is President Obama with the Hitler mustache with different lighting.
In a last ditch effort to see if I was wrong on the claim I made about Alex not taking George Bushes presidence this far (to the point where he's making posters), but as I looked up "alex jones president bush dictator scum" I didn't find anything for 3 pages execpt for the President Obama contest. And then I went on to images on those words...still nothing but Presdient Obama, with a touch of Presdient / Dictator Mubarak, from Eqypt. I know Alex said a lot of bad things about Presdient Bush which some of it was true, but most of it false and a bunch of lies which propagated the idea of a "New World Order" of some sort and "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit. Too bad that he didn't hold a contest for Presdient Bush...then I would have admitted I was wrong.
Well, that's it for now. Join me again tomorrow where I'll go over one of those Ron Paul articles from the LewRockwell website.
Shydude89.
------------
In order to focus attention on the dictatorial and imperial presidency of Obama, Alex Jones and the Infowars team have decided to launch a contest.
Taking cues from the successful Obama Joker contest we held in 2009, the new effort will use posters strategically placed in lawful public commons areas to convey the obvious – the globalist puppet Barry aka Barack Obama is a tyrannical dictator who has willfully and continually violated the Constitution and betrayed the trust of the American people. Because a lickspittle corporate media has virtually ignored the significance of Obama’s treason, we believe it is crucial to raise awareness with a new poster campaign.
----------------
Don't worry, it will get worse then this. Let's take a look over this paragraph.
" (...) the globalist puppet Barry aka Barack Obama is a tyrannical dictator who has willfully and continually violated the Constitution (...)"
When did he violate the Constitution? Oh, I think I know what Alex Jones is talking about. That time we went into Pakistan and killed Osama Bin Laden and when we put drones in the air in Yemen to go after the Al-Qaeda nutjobs and we killed that propaganda douch, Anwar Al-Awalki, who puts out magizine, called Inspire, trying inspiring muslims to become home-grown terrorist. Oh, and just because Anwar Al-Awalki is an American citizen doesn't mean we can't go after him. He is considered a terrorist and promoting terrorism with his magazine.
"Because a lickspittle corporate media has virtually ignored the significance of Obama’s treason (...)"
If that's "treason" to Alex, then I call bullshit. Anyway, there was much more treason during Bush's Adminastration, what with the lieing to Congress and to the American people.
"(...) we believe it is crucial to raise awareness with a new poster campaign."
Well, atleast you're doing something other then screaming that "9/11 was an inside job" all god damn day.
Then after that we have two videos that I'm not going to go over but you can certainly see them on the website. I think this contest is over but I'm not sure. It already has the 1st place winner, Youtube name nfcjosh. The second place winner was Youtube name ra2day. So, congrats on winning $5,000 and $1,000, you fucking fascist dickheads. Here's more of the contest crap.
----------
Win $5,000 by producing a poster and a video of its placement in a lawful public commons area. The poster must stress the tyranny of Obama and include the Infowars.com web address.
An example would be Obama festooned with a Hitler mustache or a likewise resemblance of classic totalitarian posterage (Mao or Stalin, for example). However, the sky’s the limit and we encourage you to get creative and come up with your own motif.
------------
"An example would be Obama festooned with a Hitler mustache or a likewise resemblance of classic totalitarian posterage (...)"
A Hitler mustache? On Presdient Obama? No, I think that type of thing should be reserved for Alex Jones. Alex has his own SS force (Infowarriors) who listen to his show like he's the Fuhrer.
Let's see what else Alex, the Fuhrer of Infowars, has to say next...
-------
Alex has suggested the following cues to get you started: Rat Dictator Obama, Dictator Scum, Murdering Dictator, etc. Concentrate on Obama’s crimes and you’ll find the appropriate message. We’d like to see the posters provide specific details on how Obama has become a dictator, for instance his signing of the NDAA and issuing numerous executive orders.
------------
"Alex has suggested the following cues to get you started: Rat Dictator Obama, Dictator Scum, Murdering Dictator, etc."
Hey Alex...Fuck you. You know why? You didn't do this with George Bush, did you? Oh, shit, you kind of did, but you didn't go this far.
"(...) provide specific details on how Obama has become a dictator, for instance his signing of the NDAA (...)"
Yeah, well, President Obama may have signed the NDAA bill, but at least he didn't come up with it...
---
From Justia.com : (This paragraph appers 7 paragraphs down)
It was President George W. Bush, together with Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of other senior Bush administration officials who took the most radical and important steps toward establishing indefinite detention without trial as a mainstay of the US approach to fighting terrorism. But the Bush administration, preferring to act unilaterally, did not even bother to seek congressional sanction for its indefinite detention schemes. It established Guantanamo on its own, held American citizens without charge in the absence of a legislative mandate to do so, and fought judicial oversight tooth and nail.
----
So, what happened when this happened? You want to know what happened? Nothing. No one cared. No one cared that their rights were taken away by George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeild. Well, that isn't really true. Liberals made the biggest rebel yell about these things, protesting, and talking about what George Bush did, including the Abu Ghraib prision scandle, but the Republicans and the Religious Holier-Then -Thou Right couldn't care. So, we could have stopped it, but no one cared, execpt for the liberals.
Ok, what else do we need to know Alex?
------
You can create your own poster or use ours.
Please remember to abide by all local ordinances when displaying your posters. A good rule of thumb is to post them in entertainment, eatery and bar areas where other posters may be posted.
This is a package deal and the video presentation and its overall aesthetics and dynamic content are as equally important as the graphical impact of the poster and its message.
Phase One is on a tight schedule. All video entries must be on YouTube or a similar video hosting platform by Friday, June 22, at midnight CST. Alex will announce the winner on Monday’s Infowars Nightly News streamed on PrisonPlant.tv 7pm Central.
--------
Oh, damn we missed this one...but...
----
Phase Two
Same deal as above, but with a more expansive time-frame. The winner of this phase of the contest will receive a whopping $10,000. The deadline is July 6, 2012, at midnight CST.
We can’t emphasize how important this contest is with a lackadaisical Congress and a compliant corporate media that either completely ignores Obama’s treachery or criminally glosses over it.
Entries and winner of the Phase 1 contest will be eligible for the Phase 2 contest as well.
-------
Oh damn, we missed this one too, but there are video with who won and two posters that show President Obama with a Hitler mustache with the words "DICTATOR SCUM" on the poster above and below the Presidents face. And another with "MURDERING DICTATOR" with President Obama with red glowing eyes. And, of course, the thrid one which is President Obama with the Hitler mustache with different lighting.
In a last ditch effort to see if I was wrong on the claim I made about Alex not taking George Bushes presidence this far (to the point where he's making posters), but as I looked up "alex jones president bush dictator scum" I didn't find anything for 3 pages execpt for the President Obama contest. And then I went on to images on those words...still nothing but Presdient Obama, with a touch of Presdient / Dictator Mubarak, from Eqypt. I know Alex said a lot of bad things about Presdient Bush which some of it was true, but most of it false and a bunch of lies which propagated the idea of a "New World Order" of some sort and "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit. Too bad that he didn't hold a contest for Presdient Bush...then I would have admitted I was wrong.
Well, that's it for now. Join me again tomorrow where I'll go over one of those Ron Paul articles from the LewRockwell website.
Shydude89.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Penn State Cover-Up.
You may have remebered, if you seen my first Alex Jones Sucks blog, that I had a hell of a thing to say to the kids fo Penn State that had rioted when Joe Paterno was fired. Well, here's an updated version. Sorry that I wasn't on here for a while, but I'm back...again...so, yeah. Let's take a look at this new Penn State Report from the Huffington Post about the scandel.
----------------
The most powerful officials at Penn State actively worked to cover up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse and rape of children, failing to protect them against a sexual predator for more than a decade, according to an internal investigation released Thursday.
The report on the investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh indicts President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President‐Finance and Business Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley and the late head football Coach Joe Paterno for showing "no concern" about alleged victims of Sandusky, the one time assistant football coach.
"These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities," the report stated. "They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001," when then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary reported witnessing Sandusky sexually assault a young boy in a locker room.
"There were more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time," Freeh said Thursday in a press conference.
----------------------
Isn't that great. These four people had knowledge of Sandusky's crimes and couldn't care less about the kids that were being harmed.
And, because I'm still pissed off at those damn kids for protesting Joe Paterno's firing, here's from the origanal story that I put up on my first blog before I took it down and still have on my computer.
--------------------
Penn State Students, Who Haven't Been Raped or Fondled By Peterno's Men, Riot For Peterno.
What can you say when students go crazy because Joe Peterno gets fired for not reporting the rape of a 10 year old boy in the shower, by one of his staffers, no less, to the police. About the only thing that any well thinking person can say and/or ask: What the hell is wrong with you? A 10 year old boy, and other kids, get raped and fondeled by Peterno's men, and when he's told of the rape of the 10 year old boy, he goes to his security person instead of going to the police, which he should have done seeing that he was told ONE OF HIS STAFFERS RAPED A 10 YEAR OLD BOY. And now there are new charges coming from other people that have been fondled or had forced anal or oral sex by the staffers. You at Penn State should be ashmed of yourselves. ALL OF YOU! How would you like it if it was you that was fondled or it was your brother that was raped in the shower by Peteno's men? Would you be out there rioting for Peterno or would you stay away from those people. Really, what the hell is wrong with you, Penn State?
From The Daily Beast:
---------------------
Thousands of students at Penn State rioted Wednesday night after the university fired football coach Joe Paterno and school president Graham B. Spanier. The mob flipped over a news van, tore down two lampposts, and threw rocks and cans; police responded with riot gear and tear gas. The attack on the news van demonstrated the protesters’ belief that Paterno was the victim of a media campaign. Earlier in the day, Paterno had said he would retire at the end of the season, but the school’s trustees chose to remove him immediately.
Report: Sandusky 'Pimped Out' Boys
A sportswriter claimed on Thursday that former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who has been charged with more than 40 counts of sexual abuse "pimped out" young boys to wealthy donors. While Mark Madden did not offer any facts to back up the claim, he wrote six months ago about Sandusky’s alleged sex crimes six months ago in the Beaver County Times, long before it was on anyone else’s radar. Madden on Thursday also suggested that Sandusky, who retired in 1999, was actually forced to leave his job "in exchange for a cover up." Police had investigated Sandusky in 1998 for allegedly molesting a boy, but did not prosecute him.
---------------------------
From Huffington Post:
------------------
1994 – Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.
1994-95 – Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.
1995-96 – Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.
1996-97 – Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.
1996-98 – Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.
Jan. 1, 1998 – Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.
1998 – Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.
Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."
Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.
The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.
June 1999 – Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.
Dec. 28, 1999 – Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.
Summer 2000 – Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.
Fall 2000 – A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.
Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.
March 1, 2002 – A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.
March 2, 2002 – In the morning, the graduate assistant calls Coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.
March 3, 2002 – Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.
March 2002 – Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.
March 27, 2002 (approximate) – The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in Grand Jury in December 2010.
2005-2006 – Boy known as Victim 1 says that meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.
Spring 2007 – During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.
Spring 2008 – Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.
Early 2009 – An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa. teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.
September 2010 – Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.
Nov. 5, 2011 – Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.
Nov. 7, 2011 – Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.
Nov. 8, 2011 – Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly press conference.
Nov. 9, 2011 – Paterno and Spanier, one of the nation's longest-serving college presidents, are ousted, effective immediately. Earlier in the day, Paterno announced he'd retire at the end of the season. In the end, he didn't have that choice.
-------------------------
I would like to reiterate my stance: YOU AT PENN STATE THAT HAVE RIOTED BECAUSE OF PETERNO'S FIRING SHOULD ALL BE ASHEMED OF YOURSELVES!
Update: You, at Penn State, should still be ashemed of yourselves.
Thank you for looking. There will be more tomorrow.
Shydude89.
----------------
The most powerful officials at Penn State actively worked to cover up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse and rape of children, failing to protect them against a sexual predator for more than a decade, according to an internal investigation released Thursday.
The report on the investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh indicts President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President‐Finance and Business Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley and the late head football Coach Joe Paterno for showing "no concern" about alleged victims of Sandusky, the one time assistant football coach.
"These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities," the report stated. "They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001," when then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary reported witnessing Sandusky sexually assault a young boy in a locker room.
"There were more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time," Freeh said Thursday in a press conference.
----------------------
Isn't that great. These four people had knowledge of Sandusky's crimes and couldn't care less about the kids that were being harmed.
And, because I'm still pissed off at those damn kids for protesting Joe Paterno's firing, here's from the origanal story that I put up on my first blog before I took it down and still have on my computer.
--------------------
Penn State Students, Who Haven't Been Raped or Fondled By Peterno's Men, Riot For Peterno.
What can you say when students go crazy because Joe Peterno gets fired for not reporting the rape of a 10 year old boy in the shower, by one of his staffers, no less, to the police. About the only thing that any well thinking person can say and/or ask: What the hell is wrong with you? A 10 year old boy, and other kids, get raped and fondeled by Peterno's men, and when he's told of the rape of the 10 year old boy, he goes to his security person instead of going to the police, which he should have done seeing that he was told ONE OF HIS STAFFERS RAPED A 10 YEAR OLD BOY. And now there are new charges coming from other people that have been fondled or had forced anal or oral sex by the staffers. You at Penn State should be ashmed of yourselves. ALL OF YOU! How would you like it if it was you that was fondled or it was your brother that was raped in the shower by Peteno's men? Would you be out there rioting for Peterno or would you stay away from those people. Really, what the hell is wrong with you, Penn State?
From The Daily Beast:
---------------------
Thousands of students at Penn State rioted Wednesday night after the university fired football coach Joe Paterno and school president Graham B. Spanier. The mob flipped over a news van, tore down two lampposts, and threw rocks and cans; police responded with riot gear and tear gas. The attack on the news van demonstrated the protesters’ belief that Paterno was the victim of a media campaign. Earlier in the day, Paterno had said he would retire at the end of the season, but the school’s trustees chose to remove him immediately.
Report: Sandusky 'Pimped Out' Boys
A sportswriter claimed on Thursday that former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who has been charged with more than 40 counts of sexual abuse "pimped out" young boys to wealthy donors. While Mark Madden did not offer any facts to back up the claim, he wrote six months ago about Sandusky’s alleged sex crimes six months ago in the Beaver County Times, long before it was on anyone else’s radar. Madden on Thursday also suggested that Sandusky, who retired in 1999, was actually forced to leave his job "in exchange for a cover up." Police had investigated Sandusky in 1998 for allegedly molesting a boy, but did not prosecute him.
---------------------------
From Huffington Post:
------------------
1994 – Boy known as Victim 7 in the report meets Sandusky through The Second Mile program at about the age of 10.
1994-95 – Boy known as Victim 6 meets Sandusky at a Second Mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he is 7 or 8 years old.
1995-96 – Boy known as Victim 5, meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is 7 or 8, in second or third grade.
1996-97 – Boy known as Victim 4, at the age of 12 or 13, meets Sandusky while he is in his second year participating in The Second Mile program.
1996-98 – Victim 5 is taken to the locker rooms and showers at Penn State by Sandusky when he is 8 to 10 years old.
Jan. 1, 1998 – Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl.
1998 – Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.
Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."
Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.
The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.
June 1999 – Sandusky retires from Penn State but still holds emeritus status.
Dec. 28, 1999 – Victim 4 is listed, along with Sandusky's wife, as a member of Sandusky's family party for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.
Summer 2000 – Boy known as Victim 3 meets Sandusky through The Second Mile when he is between seventh and eighth grade.
Fall 2000 – A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13.
Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8's identity is unknown.
March 1, 2002 – A Penn State graduate assistant enters the locker room at the Lasch Football Building. In the showers, he sees a naked boy, known as Victim 2, whose age he estimates to be 10 years old, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant tells his father immediately.
March 2, 2002 – In the morning, the graduate assistant calls Coach Joe Paterno and goes to Paterno's home, where he reports what he has seen.
March 3, 2002 – Paterno calls Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director to his home the next day and reports a version of what the grad assistant had said.
March 2002 – Later in the month the graduate assistant is called to a meeting with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. The grad assistant reports what he has seen and Curley and Schultz say they will look into it.
March 27, 2002 (approximate) – The graduate assistant hears from Curley. He is told that Sandusky's locker room keys are taken away and that the incident has been reported to The Second Mile. The graduate assistant is never questioned by university police and no other entity conducts an investigation until the graduate assistant testifies in Grand Jury in December 2010.
2005-2006 – Boy known as Victim 1 says that meets Sandusky through The Second Mile at age 11 or 12.
Spring 2007 – During the 2007 track season, Sandusky begins spending time with Victim 1 weekly, having him stay overnight at his residence in College Township, Pa.
Spring 2008 – Termination of contact with Victim 1 occurs when he is a freshman in a Clinton County high school. After the boy's mother calls the school to report sexual assault, Sandusky is barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter is reported to authorities as mandated by law.
Early 2009 – An investigation by the Pennsylvania attorney general begins when a Clinton County, Pa. teen boy tells authorities that Sandusky has inappropriately touched him several times over a four-year period.
September 2010 – Sandusky retires from day-to-day involvement with The Second Mile, saying he wants to spend more time with family and handle personal matters.
Nov. 5, 2011 – Sandusky is arrested and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts.
Nov. 7, 2011 – Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.
Nov. 8, 2011 – Possible ninth victim of Sandusky contacts state police as calls for ouster of Paterno and Spanier grow in state and beyond. Penn State abruptly cancels Paterno's regular weekly press conference.
Nov. 9, 2011 – Paterno and Spanier, one of the nation's longest-serving college presidents, are ousted, effective immediately. Earlier in the day, Paterno announced he'd retire at the end of the season. In the end, he didn't have that choice.
-------------------------
I would like to reiterate my stance: YOU AT PENN STATE THAT HAVE RIOTED BECAUSE OF PETERNO'S FIRING SHOULD ALL BE ASHEMED OF YOURSELVES!
Update: You, at Penn State, should still be ashemed of yourselves.
Thank you for looking. There will be more tomorrow.
Shydude89.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)