Predictions for 2013

As a self-pronounced oracle, justifiably so if you read my previous ramblings, I hereby announce a few prediction for 2013.

2013 will be a “wow”-year, and what I mean with that is that this coming year will be the year when the realization of how deep the financial chasm really is becomes more of public knowledge. It is already underway somewhat and one or two journalists have started to mention that our troubles may just have started – but 2013 will be different in the way that this year will be the first one since the crisis started back in 2007/2008 that the mainstream view will be really negative. Also coupled with more revelations about insolvent banks, defaulting governments and crashing markets it may very well bring forth the next step of The Greatest Depression.

Not sure exactly how this will manifest itself, but it is very likely that when this crisis mentality sets in that THAT will be IT for the world economy since ´trust´ is a key factor holding this house of cards together.

I once said that the real crash would happen around spring of 2010, and stuck to that prediction because all the signs and math pointed towards such an event. However thanks to a massive increase in the death-inflation-debt-bond-derivatives-scam and thanks to bought and paid for media, it didn’t happen. Sadly so since such a crisis would already be in the finishing stages – now, today, it’s much, much worse.

It is very likely that a major event will tip over the dominos this year instead, but I am still afraid that our Great and magnificent leaders will come up with a few new schemes to keep the ball rolling for another year. Hence a slower build-up and a much more painful demise awaits.

Shootings and terrorism will continue and keep government with a constant “reason” to increase surveillance and their own power. This is, in part, the only prediction I missed last year since I was absolutely convinced that a major terrorist attack would occur. Since it did not 2013 will see such an event instead. Also the mad shootings will continue and since I managed to see both the Brevik idiot and more school shootings in my crystal ball, you might want to pay attention this time. Another couple of such big events will happen, not only in the U.S. but I definitely see something happening in UK or in Sweden for example.

Of course such events are not because of already harsh gun laws or too much government and big banks running amok while psychiatric care is underfunded and we basically throw pills at all our teens for the tiniest little ill-feeling. No, it’s the complete opposite. The argument will be that we need to ban guns even more, and we of course need more government, more banks, less money to crazies and more pills to keep people happy. More surveillance and more super computers to stalk internet users will also be key responses.

Extremists will continue to grow in numbers and power exponentially. Both communists and National socialist have seen a huge upswing lately and this will not in any way halter or stop during 2013. On the contrary extremists and anti-democratic powers will gain more and more ground and this is especially true in Europe where the EU and ECB are hell-bent on destroying the entire western world. There will not be long before the echo of huge combat boots again is heard on the streets of European capitals. Nationalism will be a big thing during 2013 and the more our leaders try the worst they will make it. Succession movements, excudus of intelligentsia, and even a build up towards civil war are things you should be aware is coming.

Communists, having the bloodlust automatically built into their deranged minds, will start to hoard weaponry and I believe it to be very likely that police will discover one or two such weapon stashes, but it is also likely that new Red terrorist organizations will be born, if they haven´t started forming already.

Of course the “feeling” and stupendously moronic notion that the so called “austerity measures” was a failed policy will fester and grow as well, and with that even more arguments and power given over to extemists who always have more to give and always can blame some elusive force such as “the rich” or “immigrants”.

The tiny minute steps in the right direction taken by a few government, such as the Swedish one, will come to a screeching halt and do a 180 towards much more of the very same that created our mess in the first place. In essence Robert Mugabe will during 2013 become our new economic hero.

Complete idiots such as Krugman and Bernanke will, despite utter failure every step of the way, be looked at more and more as saviors. At least from media and our elected frauds who will be analyzing speeches and words from such evildoers carefully.  In reality its Zimbabwe and the Great Leader Mugabe they will follow, but that is not popular to say…

The search for an easy fix will really kick off. This can manifest itself in several ways. One way is what I´ve already mentioned; finding a scape goat. It was the Jews or the Muslims or the terrorists or the hackers or the rich or those darn immigrants. If we just get rid of such people, prosperity will come back.

Another one, which I am quite happy over, will be to blame larger international entities such as the World Bank and the European Union. Of course our leaders will go the other way - ignoring the cries from the people and driving them further into the warm bloody hands of totalitarians - and talk about how much we need a bigger UN, more international agreements, more Tobin taxes, and whatever else they can conjure up to create new cushy jobs to further their careers.

A third option will of course to continue down the lunatic road and demand bigger and stronger government while taxes increase and surveillance goes into overdrive. Not helping one bit with the crisis, but giving a temporary calm and false sense of security.

Probably all of the above and more will occur and one smug salesman after the other will proclaim to have the elixir to get us out with minimal damage.

They are all lying, malevolent bastards and nothing those above say or do will fix anything, but people, desperate to believe in something, will listen and follow until they realize it didn’t change anything AND THEN; all that remains will be those funny men with long dark shadows promising bliss through nationalism, socialism and unity.

Banks and finance gurus will proclaim the death of cash and argue that credit cards and a cash-free society is the way to go and work is already on the way to make this happen. Of course this is just another step by Fractional Reserve demons to gain more profits and a lovely suggestion in the eyes of politicians that will have more power while people lose even more insight into inflationary policies and hidden taxation.

Another war is coming. It’s really a tossup between Syria and Iran at the moment, but any other country or countries can be next. Venezuela and Columbia has been rattling their swords more and more, and in Africa there are so many ongoing or bubbling conflicts it’s hard to keep track of all of them. Israel is always fun, and Pakistan and India has lots of unresolved issues.

There will be more war, not less. The U.S. especially cannot stop waging wars since the only thing keeping U.S. GDP numbers above drowning levels is military spending.

My money is still on Iran. The build up towards such a conflict has been ridiculously similar to that of before both Iraq wars and all that is needed is a tiny little excuse and millions of Iranians will die. Obama has a big penis, and he need to show it by throwing lots of phallus shaped rockets at Persian children. He need to keep his kill ratio of kids and families way above that of any amateurish shooting spree maniac, how else will he be able to win a second Nobel Peace Prize?

Oh, and finally, things will start to get more and more expensive. Those inflationary policies are now starting to get felt in many countries and things like coffee, sugar, gasoline etc will become even more expensive.  

Well, there you have a few things to look forward to; have a happy 2013! 

It's for the children

Pedophiles, terrorists, suspicious men, Gay people, people with tattoos, porky individuals, sexually promiscuous women, and many more are out to get our young. This we know. We need to save kids from too dangerous equipment, we need padded homes with surveillance, and if we can tag our offspring with a GPS chip we really show how much we care.

We care so much about our young that we inject them with dozens of needles with reasonable risk for anaphylactic events and a fair possibility of getting narcolepsy – just because pharmaceutical companies and politicians say it is a good idea.

We care so much that we happily vote for soul-sucking thieves over and over again since they promise to give us indoctrinating gun-free schools so if not killed by armed assailants, the kids at least become useful automatons in service of the common good. And whenever a mass-shooting do occur at a school we can rest assured that the same government that is murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of kids overseas will protect us and our kids after the fact.

We love our kids so much that whenever our government randomly takes kids away from us to be raised within the social system, we are ecstatically cheerful.

We love our kids to such a degree that we refuse to be able to protect them and we will never use self-defense, because kids may grow up to love violence if we do and it’s the governments job to protect them, and us.

For the sake of children we´re willing to give up freedom of speech, our right to due trial, and happily we hand over all property rights. After all, what are a few rights and freedoms in comparison to looking after our young?

Every ban and new law we cheer – smoking is harmful for the children, so is alcohol, drugs, cars, food additives, sugar, chips, and many other things. Gratefully we accept new restrictions and new taxation, because we know it’s for the children.

In essence we want an ouch-free cushy environment and a society filled with pillows and soft blankets so no harm can ever come to anyone.

Sharp corners? Ban them! Tree-houses? Horrible! Outlaw immediately! And did you see the Johnson family next door? They allow their kids to ride a bike without helmet; perhaps we should call social services?

Internet is for pedophiles and terrorists, oh and by the way; why is that man working at a kindergarten? A bit suspicious, don´t you think? And a grown man coaching 14 year old girls’ football team? Weird...

Just remember, all we do is for the children. It would be soooo horrible if they grow up able to think and take care of themselves. So the next time your government wants to pass a law, make sure it will protect the young (if a politician say so, it must be true!), and then happily accept it.

Personally I love my kids so much I never had any. Would never bring offspring into a world filled with people like you – the idiots – who really, and truly, believe in what I just wrote above.  

I guess you can look at this picture without crying - I cannot. It fills me with tears every time I look at it, but you love this don´t you? After all, he´s just a dark skinned Muslim boy and the Nobel Prize Winning President did this to him, so it must be right. 

Oh, and happy marry fucking x-mas! 

Guns don´t kill people - Obama does

I re-post from the Market Ticker. No one can say it better then this.

Please also remember that Obama murders more kids per month then all school shootings put together, but they are colored and Muslim, so I guess you don´t care..?

Please read;
Original

----
Obama's Hypocrisy Problem On Guns

I just got done throwing up (again) listening to Obama opine on gun control in the wake of the Newtown shooting
Let's step back for a moment and look at this issue with a wide-angle lens, starting with President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg, two of the loudest anti-gun proponents.

Let me first disclose where I'm coming from -- I'm a parent of a teen-age daughter and have raised her single-handed since she was in diapers.  She came into this world through an intentional act that I undertook with not only full acceptance of the potential consequence but actual planning for that consequence.  I would lay down my life for her, as would most parents.  And in a few years she will go off on her own, yet I believe ourrelationship will remain solid through the years. I hope to someday see the "circle of life" repeat with one or more grandchildren and, I hope, a worthy partner with whom she chooses to live her life with.
I still remember walking her out to the bus stop that first day of school, and her marching up into the bus to go to kindergarten.  Just like every other parent has done in one way or another.

I never gave much thought to the idea that she might be at risk while in school.  Oh sure, it's always a possibility -- anything is a possibility; there might be a tornado tomorrow, or lightning could hit you on the way to get the mail in the afternoon.  But there are some things that you start by believing, or you'dnever let your kid walk up those steps onto the bus.  Among them are that the teachers and staff are not creeps; they are there to help your child learn, not exploit them in some hideous way.  You cede to those people what is known as in loco parentis for a number of hours in the day, and then you take that responsibility back when your kid comes home in the afternoon.

If there's a bump in the night and it's a thug intent on attacking my family, it's my responsibility to deal with it first.  That's who I am as the head of the household.  I am the first responder, because my other alternative is to be the first victim, either alongside or right in front of my daughter. And again, while you don't expect such an event to happen, and you arrange your life as best you're

able to prevent it, there is no such thing as a guarantee
Now please understand one thing very clearly before we continue.
Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama don't have this issue.

They literally do not care about such things, and they design their life and their public office so as to be able to not care.  It is an intentional act they could cast aside should they so choose, but they have not and will not.
Mayor Bloomberg has a small cadre of hired hands who are near and with him literally 24 hours a day.  They are armed, all the time, and they are paid to worry about these things so he doesn't have to.
Likewise, President Obama has a literal army of trained, armed soldiers in the form of parts of the military and an entire division of officers (The Secret Service) whose job it is, once again, to make this not his problem for both him and his entire family.  Michelle and his children do not have to concern themselves about these issues because there are literally over a thousand others who are paid to take that responsibility -- up to and including eating a bullet in their place.
Neither of these people is proposing to rely on what they claim you should rely on -- a "law."  A piece of paper, which today doesn't even get printed on real paper; it's a ghost in a machine that glows at you in the dark.

They did not say that government gave them rights.  They stated that you had them, just as they had them, simply by virtue of being human and alive.  That all persons have them, and that they are unalienable -- unable to be removed by any man.

If you believe that you have a right to life because your creator endowed you with that right, and that this right is unalienable and thus cannot be taken from you (although it can certainly be disrespected!) then it follows that you have not only the right but the responsibility to defend your life.  That is, you have the right and the responsibility to deter to the best of your ability any other person who would take your life from you.
You may choose to delegate this responsibility to others, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have, but your right to life is not inferior to theirs.  It is equal.  President Obama has no more right to live than you do.  You are his equal from the standpoint of what your creator, and his creator, endowed both of you with.
So we have established that you have the right to live, as does the President.  And if the President has the right to defend his life with deadly force, and indeed the responsibility to do so, then, should it be necessary, so do you.
This debate should end right there.  Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing -- not even a moralargument -- behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim -- no matter who you are.

But of course the debate doesn't end there, because the false equivalences don't begin and end with rank hypocrisy and politicians crapping all over the documents they swear to uphold.
Worse, we the people keep electing jackasses just like them.  Indeed, in the last election we had two choices for President that were both hostile to your fundamental right to life.
Thus, we are compelled to continue our debate and look at the world around us.
Unfortunately when we continue our examination that we find that there is evil in the world.  There are those who disrespect other people's rights.  Some of them may want to kill you.  Everyone who undertakes to murder believes their reason for doing so is justified.  That they may be objectively insane doesn't change their view of the world.  Their desire to see you die is in direct conflict with your right to live.
In that situation one of you will be victorious, and the other will not.
It is your decision, and only justly your decision, how you resolve this conflict.  You have the right to surrender your life if you so wish, but in doing so you are making a decision that only you, and nobody else, has the authority to make.

President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg demand that you cede this decision to an insane criminal.
They are attempting to demand that you not defend your right to life, although they will not themselves do what they demand of you and cede theirdecision to any person who is insane and would kill them. 
They in fact spend millions of your taxpayer dollars to prevent the very victimization they demand you submit to from happening to them.
There is only one sane response to that demand, and it is for you to insist that these people perform an anatomically-impossible act.
Now let's put this in the context of your children.
When a child is born it is defenseless, hungry and cold.  The newborn baby is dependent upon its parents for everything, other than oxygen from the air, that it needs to survive.  It is incapable of feeding itself, it is incapable of adjusting its environment and bodily covering to deal with environmental changes such as heat or cold, and it is incapable of disposing of the waste products from bodily processes in a manner that will not make itself and others ill.  That child, during the next 18 years, undergoes growth in both mind and body, to the point where (hopefully) he or she is capable of discharging those responsibilities alone.
But until that time comes, you are that child's protector.  You are the one ensconced with the responsibility to protect that child's life.

That child's right to life is unalienable but as that child's parent you are the one charged with defending that right.

How dare you refuse to discharge that responsibility!

Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, along with many others have, thus far successfully, demanded that you intentionally refuse to defend your child's right to life as soon as that child enters a school -- and they then attempt to compel you, by law, to have that child attend some form of school!

How dare you consent in place of that young person who is too young to do so!
They have the gall to tell you that your children must be unarmed targets while armed guards stand at the ready next to them on a literal 24 hour a day basis to prevent the same thing from happening to them, while forcing you to pay for their protection.
How dare you accept this premise while they smugly stand with their Secret Service and Police, armed to the teeth, not even willing to step inside a hotel without security first checking to make sure there has been no evil laid in!

Now I would like it very much if we could find a way to rid the world of evil.  Simply making all guns disappear, which is incidentally a factual impossibility, is unfortunately insufficient.  One of the worst mass-murders committed in the 20th century was undertaken by a man with less than a gallon of gasoline and two matches; he killed 80 people here in the United States and is currently in prison for life.  No gun law in the world could have changed that outcome, for he did not use a gun. Another nutjob blew up a federal building in Oklahoma; he used fertilizer, diesel fuel and a truck.  Likewise people have murdered with cars, SUVs, swimming pools, common household goods used as poisons along with sporting goods, including baseball bats, golf clubs and even their bare hands.  A not-insignificant number of murders in China in recent years have been committed (in schools no less!) by knife-wielding assailants.  Your kitchen contains more than enough implements of destruction to murder virtually anyone, especially if taken by surprise.  Harris and Klebold at Columbine not only used guns, they also attempted to blow up the school with tanks of ordinary propane; fortunately the detonators failed to work.
I don't see anyone talking about banning outdoor BBQ grills.

Fortunately man is clever and invented a device many years ago that makes the weak the equal of the strong.  It makes the 90lb woman the equal of the 250lb man who desires to******her.  It makes the 92 year old wheelchair-ridden widow able to stop two teenage thugs who break into her home with felony on their mind.
And it makes an elementary school principal, janitor or teacher able to stop a rampaging young man.
It's called a gun.
We recently read in the news about a deranged man who stole a gun and shot up a shopping mall in Oregon.  After shooting a couple of people his gun jammed.  He un-jammed it and then decided to shoot himself, despite the fact that the police had not yet arrived.  This puzzled me, as the pattern in these rampages is that the maniac continues to kill until he either runs out of ammunition or the police arrive and it is evident that he will be captured.  Then, as his final act of defiance, he kills himself.  This insane individual checked out before the cops got there, which is uncommon, despite having plenty of ammunition remaining -- and no cops yet at the door.
The media, Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Joe Lieberman and others didn't talk about why he shot himself instead of continuing his rampage once he unjammed his gun.  They tried to keep that quiet on purpose, concealed from you because it destroys their justification for demanding that you cede the most-holy of all rights that you have -- your right to life -- to them.
You see, a man carrying a concealed weapon, an ordinary law-abiding 22-year old citizen, pulled that weapon and used it to defend himself, his friend and her baby.

He didn't have a clear shot without the risk of hitting an innocent person and thus didn't fire.  He didn't have to.  The shooter saw him along with his gun and that was enough for him -- he decided to dispatch himself.
That's how it happens 98% of the time, according to the FBI.  98 times in 100 when a citizen uses a firearm in self-defense he or she doesn't have to shoot anyone.  It's simply enough that the weapon is there in the hands of a person willing to defend their right to life -- the criminal decides to terminate his assault.
The gun, the much-maligned gun, in the hands of a person willing to discharge their personal responsibility to defend their own life and those who they love, stops a felony in process more than one million times a year in the United States -- and 98% of the time that weapon is not discharged.
President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Lieberman, Pelosi, Boxer and more are all dancing in the blood of those dead children in Newtown and worse, they are lying to you about the true record that guns have in relationship to crime in this country and they know it as the counter to their argument that guns in the hands of citizens would not stop such assaults happened just days before!
Now let's look at another argument -- that citizens will shoot "wildly" and hit innocent people.  The facts say differently -- citizens in fact shoot the wrong person only 1/5th as often as police officers!
This really isn't surprising, when you think about it, and it also isn't an indictment of the police.  A police officer almost never is at the scene of a crime when it begins; he is called or otherwise discovers the crime in process.  As he was not the original intended victim it's not surprising that he's sometimes not real sure who the bad guy is.
A woman being raped, on the other hand, is quite sure who the rapist is at the moment he attempts his crime, since his body is attached to the instrument with which he intends to commit the assault.  Her odds of engaging the wrong person by accident are vanishingly small.

And this leads to the next problem -- the cops are never there.  They can't be.  When seconds count the police will be along in 5 minutes.  Within those 5 minutes a homicidal maniac can murder dozens of people.  The police will then "catch" (or kill) him, but you will still be dead.

It therefore is utterly ridiculous for you to rely on the police and insane for any government official to suggest (or worse, insist) that you do so; their purpose is to show up with a broom and clean up the mess, documenting it all for prosecutors, juries and judges -- if the assailant is still alive.
I've already made the case conclusively that our government at both State and Federal levels are full of hypocrites who insist that you cede to them your right to life, while they assiduously protect themselves at your expense, being unwilling to live with the restrictions they would impose on you.
But in truth it gets worse than that.
You see, our government has been running guns.  Illegally running guns.  Jaime Avila, in just one of many examples, purchased two rifles that were found at the scene of a federal agent shot near the Arizona-Mexico border.  Our government knew Mr. Avila was illegally trafficking weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel.  Nonetheless, when his purchases were called into the BATFE for clearance the government intentionally approved the transactions despite knowing they were illegal. 
Two of those hundreds of weapons came back over the border and were used to murder Brian Terry.  Hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered with these guns in total -- guns that our government illegally, intentionally and maliciously allowed to be delivered to this murderous cartel.
Mr. Avila's sentence?  57 months in prison, or just under 6 years.
When?
Two days before the Newtown Connecticut shootings.
Media outrage?  Zero.
Your outrage?  Did you even know about the sentence?
Guess who didn't tell you and run that story every 5 minutes on national TV -- the same media that is trying to ban your firearms!
An adjunct to the oft-heard argument that we shouldn't allow guns in places like schools, churches and similar is that civilians can't be trusted to only shoot when they should, and not when it's unclear if they could injure or kill an innocent person.
But the record says otherwise, and not only in the incident that occurred just days before Newtown at the Oregon mall.  Witness this incident from March of this year, one of over a million a year, when a deranged man claiming he wanted to see his children (who do not attend there) showed up at a church and kicked in the door while wielding a shotgun.
He didn't expect to find a parishioner with a pistol pointed at him, who then held the would-be shooter until the police arrived.  As in 98% of these cases the armed citizen in this event did not need to shoot -- by the mere presence of his firearm he likely prevented the nut with the shotgun from causing mayhem in the church.
Arguments over magazine size or type of weapon are distractions.  A man intent on murder who doesn't have a 30 round magazine will stuff three 10 rounders in his pocket instead.  You can change magazines in less than a second with a bit of practice; such a restriction burdens no criminal.  Not only did the alleged assailant in Newtown have a rifle with him that some people would like to ban he also stole two pistols, either of which alone was more than sufficient to commit the mass-murder that occurred.  In the instant case banning "assault weapons" would have changed exactly nothing, never mind that Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban and it did not prevent the crime!

What's worse is that banning weapons based on how they look (which is what so-called "assault weapons" bans do) has nothing to do with the ability of a firearm to inflict injury.  Semi-automatic firearms, which is what all of these are, were invented in the 1800s.  They were sold through the mail with no background check or anything else until 1968.  Many of the most popular firearms, including shotguns such as the Remington 1100, .22LR rifles such as the Ruger 10-22 and many hunting rifles are semi-automatic.
Indeed, the common AR-15 variants are most-often used for varmints, target practice and competition.  None of these weapons are "machine guns" orweapons of war, the sale and possession of machine guns (any weapon which can fire more than one round for each pull of the trigger) have been heavily regulated (but legal) since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

AR-15 variants are the most-popular sporting weapon sold in the United States; surveys show more than 3 million Americans own one.  They're popular because they're reasonably-priced, reasonably-accurate out of the box, have a light recoil and thus can be used by women and others of smaller stature without having your shoulder pounded to a bloody pulp and the ammunition is reasonably-priced since the cartridge is relatively small (in fact the bullet is about the same size and mass as a 22LR!)
These rifles are considered severely-underpowered for many hunting applications and in fact it is illegal to hunt deer with one in many states as they are not lethal enough to have a reasonable certainty of humanely taking the animal in question.  Common hunting rifles are far more deadly than an AR-15.
There is in fact nothing particularly special about the AR-15, or for that matter any other gun.
Now, onto legal constraints as they exist today, and the fallacy that they could have prevented what occurred last week.
Background checks are already necessary to buy guns but again do nothing to deter a determined criminal.  In the case of Newtown the system worked;the shooter attempted to buy his weapon at a store and was turned down.

He then turned to murder -- of his mother -- to acquire the weapons he used.
There is no background check system that would have prevented this tragedy.  The guns didn't come from a licensed dealer, there was no circumvention of the system via the so-called "gun show loophole" (or any other sort of loophole); the alleged perpetrator in fact murdered the lawful owner of the weapons in order to acquire them.

Further, mass-shooting events are almost-never random.  Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting both are known to have been extensively planned.  In the case of Newtown it is reported that the shooter destroyed his computer, including the hard disk, before beginning his assault, in addition to attempting to buy a gun in a store.  This evidences material amounts of planning and premeditation, which means he didn't randomly decide to shoot up a school, he planned to do so and selected that as the location most-likely to bring him "success" as he defined it in whatever twisted worldview he held.  Had he not been able to find someone with guns he could steal through committing murder (and consider that a cop could have been his intended target in that regard since they all have guns!) he could have used any one of a number of other easily-acquired means of committing murder and mayhem.  This shooter was clearly nuts, but insane does not mean unable to plan -- that he very-clearly was able to do, and did.
There are, however, three things we could have done, and any of them might have stopped the tragedy from occurring, or at least limited or prevented the loss of life.
The first is to get rid of the so-called "gun free zones"; they are nothing more than a public advertisement that the persons within them are unarmed and thus targets for anyone who wants to commit murder.
There is already a strong vetting process for school personnel.  We check them for criminal records for entirely valid reasons -- nobody wants a pedophile working for the school in contact with their kids!  There is no reason not to allow school districts, if they so choose, to allow those members of their staff and faculty who desire to acquire the training to carry concealed to do so while on school property.  In short removing the target of opportunity sign from the front door might have deterred this shooter.  If it didn't the principal and teachers who elected to be trained would have had a fighting chance.  And that's all we can ask for, really, when all the other defenses we try to put up in front of such an assault fail.
Second, if you're going to actually "up-armor" the schools, then do it and mean it.  Classroom doors must be able to be locked from the inside and require a key to open from the outside.  Sidelights and glass in the doors must be of shatter-proof material (e.g. wired glass or polycarbonate) so as to prevent someone from breaking a window and either walking in or reaching through or unlocking the door.  Doors must be able to withstand a reasonabledegree of assault, meaning they should be steel-framed and steel-cored, bolted to the building. The point is to deter assault, not make it impossible.  At the same time there needs to be a means for two-way communication to and from the office along with some sort of duress alarm so in the event of a serious problem the teachers can all be informed to lock the doors.  Many people want "single-point" entry with a passthrough from a front office or similar -- this is a nice idea for new schools, but is entirely unreasonable for existing construction.  In addition we need to be sensitive to the fact that you still have to deal with exposures during before and after-school periods (e.g. when buses are loading and unloading); there's only so much you can reasonably do without turning schools into prisons.  Our children are not prisoners of the State and we must not allow them to be treated as if they are.
Third, we must improve psychiatric surveillance and impose liability on those professionals who have a duty to report and fail to do so.  The shooter at the Colorado movie theater could have been interdicted on this basis but wasn't.  We don't yet know if that is the case in this incident, but the public deserves to know.  There is a serious civil liberty concern here that has to be balanced against public safety, and for this reason the exact criteria and how we perform that balance must take place through public debate.  There's nothing wrong with being crazy; we all have the right to be nuts so long as we're not a risk to anyone else.  But when someone expresses a credible desire to commit mass-murder that sort of shield must evaporate.

In short the answer is not found in gun bans -- no matter what sort of excuse is offered.  In the instant case there is no gun ban that would have changed the outcome.

But beyond the proved inability to be effective gun bans are nothing more than an outrageous demand by our political leadership that we submit not only ourselves but our children to slaughter by criminals, promoted by politicians dancing in dead childrens' blood and upon their still-warm corpses, while they hide behind their armed guards, bullet-proof windows and armored vehicles.

No citizen should stand for this crap -- not on an ethical basis, not on a moral basis, and not on a Constitutional basis. 

A school shooting in Sweden

In Sweden people are shot every single day, gun control works? My ass it does.. 

Apparently the Swedish police is taking preventive measures to tackle a future school shooting.

My only question is; why?

Guns are outlawed, all Swedish Schools are gun-free zones, and as our neighboring countries have proven, Norway especially, a shooting therefor becomes impossible. We know for a fact that only in bible-thumping America where guns grow on trees and every banjo playing nut-job is out to slaughter the innocent, such things occur.

Right?

Well, of course this is wrong, especially since… EVERY! SINGLE! SHOOTING! HAPPEN! IN! A! GUN! FREE! ZONE!!!

If you are a parent, regardless if you are in the U.S. in Sweden or wherever, and you don´t take action now; how will you feel after the fact? Once your kids are dead and you know they may have been saved if only self-defense had been allowed. Is the safety of your job and your fear of government bigger then how much you love your kids?

Of course teachers and parents should be armed. Of course every single woman out there should be armed. Of course every person you meet on the street should/could carry several guns. Of course guns should be allowed everywhere, all the time. That would be a safer, much safer society.

Politician’s don´t want you armed, that take away their power and if you can rely on yourself for protection, what do you need government for? And in the end you might use that gun to overthrow an oppressive and authoritarian government. Consequently you know why politician’s don´t want you carrying a gun. Has nothing to do with your or anyone else’s safety but theirs, only theirs.

The police can only, in the case of 99% of all crimes, arrive on the scene afterwards. Getting raped, robbed, murdered, or hacked into little pieces? Well, if you are lucky enough to put out a status update on Facebook so your friends can call the police or if you can call yourself before the slaughter or before that greasy smelly old rapists smack you down for a “fun time” – well then the police will arrive of course, but 10min, 15min, or perhaps 1 hour later. They will take your statement, if you are still alive, and they will try to do their job, but afterwards – after the fact.

And this really is a woman issue more than anything. A woman is physically weaker than a man and consequently THE ONLY way to equalize the balance of power is to be armed. It may be a pepper spray or you might have taken karate lessons, but since a man, especially several men, still is able to put any woman down, the only real protection a woman can rely on is a gun. If you are a feminist, advocating gun rights should be your number one priority – if not, how can you expect us thinking folk to take you seriously?

You should get a gun. Legally or illegally. That is your right, and don´t let anyone tell you differently. Get protected, protect the young, protect property rights and if anyone tries to rape, rob or kill you, shoot the bastard. So what if you get prosecuted, you are alive and you have shown the rest of the criminals that sometimes normal folk fight back. Damn your government. Damn the idiots. Get a gun! 

First we take their guns, and then we take Berlin

Protect yourself? Pfff, nonsense. Government will protect you! 

There´s not often a comparison between Hitler and a contemporary leader is warranted, and every time you Godwin yourself you have sort of lost the argument beforehand. Still… It is impossible not to.

One of the key aspects of the National Socialists was to create, withheld and uphold what come to be called Hitler Jugend. Basically youth camps with self-improvement, exercise and training to help out in society and support those in need. Boy scouts really. Pretty harmless by itself, but the indoctrination and political propaganda was not.

Another key element was the control of media. Basically the Nazis were the first mass-producers of media, in all fields; radio, cinema, pamphlets, mass gatherings and so on.

Furthermore they realized they needed an external enemy – something they could get the people to rally against. Usually it’s perceived that it was the Jews, as a race, they conjured up as an enemy. Although that is true in all its stupidity, the entire story is seldom told. What is not always said is that they saw the Jews instrumental in Germany´s defeat in WW I because the banks that bankrolled both sides was mostly owned and controlled by Jews, and with a European History of blaming Jews for pretty much everything it was not such a farfetched idea as it may seem for us, today, at a first glance.

I could go on about the lunacy of the Nazis and give a further history lesson, but let me come to my main point.

Do you know what one of the first decrees the National Socialist party issued after consolidated power? They took away the people´s right to own and bear arms.

Not uncommon for totalitarian regimes to follow that very path. If you want to control the populace, you cannot have them armed and able to defend themselves now can you? So of course Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler (as well as many others) outlawed self-defense. Usually under the disguise of justice and wanting to bring forth a less violent society – the government can and will protect you!

And this is a concept not only used by dictators. Once you strip people of their right to defend themselves, they only have one place to go once they get robbed, raped, tricked or beaten; to their government. A gun-free society is solely based on the premise that government is and should be the only line of defense. Government is justice, government will defend you and your rights, and so government officials are the only ones allowed to carry weapons.

In a democratic state with a decent market economy and stable institutions this sort of work because we all know that criminal gangs, the Mafia and rapists never use weaponry - such things are outlawed after all, and criminals obey the law.

But even if we sometimes see the occasional butter knife in the pocket of a Hells Angel member and knowing how a soft air-gun is the weapon of choice for drug runners (unless Government provides them with alternatives), we are still left with the basic principle; Government is good, self-protection is bad.

You see this is what all those dictators understood fully. Unarmed people are easier to boss around then if armed. And this is the very essence of gun rights.

Sure you should have the right to shot would-be rapists and if someone breaks into your home, you should have a right to protect it. Also going to school knowing that teachers can, if push comes to shove, bring forth a gun and at least save most if not all of you, is a fact hard to ignore. There are a lot of reasons for people to own and carry guns, but the main reason and why gun-rights are so important, perhaps more so than any other right, is that if the government turn from being the protector to becoming the main source of evil, if a government becomes what it is supposed to protect you from, then you should have the means and the power to do something about it.

Let me clarify this once more so you understand; self-defense and standing up against criminals and rapists is secondary – so is hunting, or anything else guns can be used for. The main purpose of having an armed populace is to protect it from its own government.

This is why all totalitarians hate people with guns. This is also the main reason why most politicians, and especially people leaning to the left, hate people that advocate gun rights. If the people have guns and are willing to use them against their government, how can politicians get away with all the crap they want to get away with? In the end government may be more afraid of the people, then the people are afraid of its government – and that cannot stand.

You haft to understand this when talking about guns and things like the American constitution. Yes, guns save lives, and there are plenty ofways to prove this, but even if the opposite side would get all the facts on their side, it does not change the fundamental idea of an armed populace.

A gun can, and sometimes should, be used against both an armed assailant entering your home and against armed thugs hired by government – perhaps even against leaders and politicians.

Scary uh? Do I sound dangerous to you? Most of you probably think that I do, and guess what a government official think while reading this. Oh my, do you think I will end up on one of those maybe-terrorist lists?

But what you should be concerned about is being unarmed while constant propaganda fills media and your government takes step after step towards a very dark and oppressive future. And when (not if!) the next Hitler or Stalin comes along, you stand there with nothing to fight with it will not feel so comfy. Sure the people outnumber both the military and police 20 to 1, or more, but rushing against a machine gun is not an easy thing to do when all you have is a stone and a pitchfork. It is always easier and safer to conform and obey, perhaps even turn in your neighbor as a good little citizen.

Consequently you should not think and argue that all gun right activists are bible-thumping right-wing extremists, because they may save your life someday.

In light of this watching the pick-pocket in Chief of the white house declaring that new gun laws are needed while his Obama youths goes to camp and learn how great their leader is, should make you think twice before siding with what journalists and politicians say on the matter. Whether you think, as I do, that armed teachers and abolishing gun-free zones will save lives, or you think that is a crazy notion, please remember that such a discussion is secondary to having the people able fight their own government.

And also please bear in mind that today we have a new threat that is everywhere and strikes both abroad and nearer to home; terrorists! Sometimes they can be recognized wearing a turban and speaking Arabic, or they can be a child walking a suspicious road home from school in Pakistan, but we all know they are everywhere. A horrible foe, a dyer threat to the freedoms and a threat to our wonderful prosperity in the West. Only the existence of such heinous folk is enough to bring forth the surveillance state - after all we need to protect our habitat and if we need to slaughter millions of dark skinned people to find one or two real targets, it’s a sacrifice needed for the good of humanity.

Starting war after war, invading country after country, fighting a largely fictitious enemy, having celebrities, media and big business on his side, murdering more kids then all school shootings put together, taking away people´s rights to own guns, millions of youths passing through indoctrination camps, more and bigger government while detaining without trial or reason and even executing his own citizens, nah, Obama is nothing like Hitler…

…After all, Obama won The Time´s ´Person of the year award´ for the second time, surely Hitler would have never… oh, hold on… wait just a second… 

How to destroy a country

If you borrow more money and buy more stuff you don´t need, I will appear! jey! 

We have seen this a few times now, not only recently, but over time as well. We know it never worked before and in fact it never will work either but constantly and ferociously our magnificent leaders try it again and again and again.

What I am talking about is of course trying to solve problems created by too much cheap credit with way too low interest rates and too much government interference with even more of the same.

Sweden is now heading down the same path towards the abyss as previously Greece, Spain, and all the rest went galloping down towards. Well, to be fair it is probably a road more similar to that Japan and the U.S. If time allowed it Sweden would face a stagnant economy with permanent problems and an ever increasing debt-mountain, just like the Japanese have had for a couple of decades and the U.S. have had for a few years. Sadly time won´t allow that happier scenario.

I say happier because we should be so lucky to only have a stagnant economy with sky-high debts and very high unemployment. But no, time is up.

I don´t really understand why so many out there keep allowing the elitists to repeat the mistakes of neighbors and previous rulers. In fact it seem like most of you even encourage it. Pundits, journalists and most economists certainly do, but the people too seem to live in a dream world far, far away where pink unicorns immediately appear when more paper money is printed, where the sky turn wonderful blue and gold sipper out from every stone instantly after we borrow more trillions, a world filled of wonders and shiny rainbows as long as we give government and banks more power.

Delusional idiots.

For once I would like to see politicians stand up and say;

“We are sorry, we messed up. We will however fix this now by doing the complete opposite of what has been done. We will cut government in half, allow the market to set interest rates, and we will tighten the grip of both our money supply and our banks. After that we´ll roll back all the laws and rules that we have put in place to obstruct you normal folk. Yes, this means much lower, and for a while minus, comes to GDP. It will mean that many will lose their jobs and homes, and plenty of businesses will go bankrupt. But in the end and after a few years of hardship and hard work, we will get real prosperity and real growth back. If you instead want The Greatest Depression, please ignore us and vote for someone else.”

That would be the truth and that would be the shinier happier road to take.

Our government printed trillions and gave it to big banks - look how happy we are! Jey! 

But reading comments online and seeing what a happy jump the stock market did when the Swedish central bank issued even lower interest rates yesterday, it chills my bones. I feel sick and disgusted.

Instead of fixing the problems they created and letting the market correct itself, instead of flushing out bad investments and get people to save again, the central banksters issued a decree that promises certain destruction - and this at a time when the entire world is going down the drain.

And the only thing commentators seem to care about is ´when´ (not if) the Swedish government will pour more gasoline on the fire by borrowing/printing and throwing such borrowed/printed cash into the economy. As if that’s the remedy to bring forth opulence and pink unicorns.

Anyone that understands finance and economy knows that in order to get real healthy investments you need savings. Without savings there are no investments, because there is no money to invest. From a Keynesian view government can step in and play the investor by borrowing and printing money and so get investments going in the economy, but in reality all such a scheme accomplishes is that the government takes future savings and future investments and put them to use today since the money borrowed has to be paid back (with interest) and any additional notes printed brings with it inflation.

Another thing people with working synapses understand is that we today live within a debt-dependent and an ever-increase-in-prices economy. Take away the debts and the constant price increases and the economy crashes. Automatically. As a matter of fact; if we took away all debts there would be no money. All money is created from, by, because of, and in order to increase debt. In essence anytime a government tries to do the right thing deflation, crashing real-estate markets and failing banks becomes a reality. It too is automatic. Or, to put it bluntly, if they do the right thing voters will riot and vote for the other guys. This is why every single government is doing the same thing. From their point of view, they have no other choice. It’s either eat the bullet now or pray and hope that something or someone will save them and the country. Left or right? Have no meaning anymore. It does not matter. All of them need to keep the banks solvent, keep prices going up and keep at least a fair amount of debt in the system.

It’s a failed Keynesian system built around the idiocy of Fractional Reserve Banking.

Only if you vote for the same parties as usual, then this is our happy future together! 

It’s not really socialism, although it often leans in that direction, and it’s not capitalism. It’s a highly regulated; government controlled market economy wherein the big banks rule supreme and the ´Too big to fail´ control the pawns. And with a constant increase in regulations, the roll-out of the surveillance society, and the escalation of our problems going forth towards a very shaky future, the closest ideology becomes Fascism.

But regardless of what label or ideology you wanna put on it, the reality is that we´re inside the biggest shit-storm in human existence. There are no magical formulas; there are no government programs, there´s no savior waiting behind the curtain – this is it, this is The Greatest Depression.

I hope you all enjoy the show – it’s going to be fabulously gory and magnificently disastrous. And sadly Sweden won´t be saved, the central bank has seen to that. 

Autocracy grows while the world crashes

Remember this when that rusty pipe of financial Armageddon penetrates you... 

As you should know by now our global debt serf system is very effective – and in spectacular fashion our economies are slowly (but surely) moving towards a financial abyss. Keynesians and socialists are still screaming that we need more debt while conservatives claiming to be against certain expenses, want to keep or expand others. Unions, pensioners, and other groups are looking for their handout and whenever anyone mentions cuts; the anger from such groups can be measured on the Richter scale. Teachers, pundits and journalists all in unison claim we need more government involvement in the economy while people keep voting for the same political parties and ideas as they always vote for.

In essence nothing has changed other than that more and more people has awaken to the realization that the world economy is getting worse and worse.

Sadly the way forward is dictated by the very same malicious entities that created our problems. Of course they in turn are eagerly applauded and cheered on by the very same clueless morons that sold and packaged the original scams, and they in turn are enthusiastically mentioned on the news as our saviors.

Consequently things are getting worse by the minute.

Reading news article comments and listening to friends I could conclude that we have had a rude awaking. Even a few journalists seem to have realized where this is heading. Sadly, as eluded to above, people only see the consequences, present and future, but they don´t see the why or the road traveled to reach this point.

And if we don´t understand why we ended up with The Greatest Depression and if we don´t know the road traveled  how can we turn this around?

The answer is; we can´t.

This is the biggest difference now, with this crisis, in comparison with all other economic crashes of history; there is only one way out and any suggested alternative will not just fail, it will in fact make things worse.

No inflationary policy will save us, no additional spending will bring forth prosperity, no new laws will create jobs, and no matter how many times our great and fantastic leaders fly private jets to meet in order to discuss - they cannot do anything to turn this around. It doesn't matter how much lefties scream - and get - more rules and more excessive expenditures. It has no meaning if we close down our boarders to keep any elusive immigrants away from our women and jobs.

We cannot get out of this and we will have an enormous financial collapse dwarfing that of the 30´s – nothing can stop that now.

What is even worse than our pending and unavoidable crash is that there is nowhere out up ahead either. From our leader’s perspective, from the viewpoint of economists, and with the perception of most people in mind, we cannot solve this. It cannot be done. Consequently we´re not talking about 5 years or 10 or 15 years of recession/depression, we´re basically talking forever.

Recession/depression for all time… Fun isn´t it?

The reason is that the system is dependent on debt and constant price increases. If prices go down and debts in general go down, the system implodes. Automatically. To me, and anyone that actually understands economy and finance, prices going down is a good thing and debts created outside of production is a bad thing and if going down or become eliminated; it’s a great. But our current system of Fractional reserve banking, constant inflation and new exotic derivatives popping up every week lead mainstream fools to conclude that prices and debts going down is a bad thing and if that occurs cornflake-economists and politicians will squeal about lacking cash-flow or that we´ve have a credit crunch.

If you understand this you also understand that the ONLY way out (which no one will consider or take) is to let it all crash and fail, and consequently that we, afterwards, set up a better more rational financial system.

Of course there are three other ways we can get out of this mess; 

      1)      Alien intervention.

A benevolent Alien race, or ourselves from the future, arrive to fix it for us.

      2)      Devine intervention.

Benevolent God(s) arrive to fix it for us.

      3)      A massive increase in productivity

For example; cold fusion is invented alongside a cure for every illness and everyone get clean water. This is only a temporary fix though, but would let them run the scam for another decade or two.

Since these three options are very unlikely to occur it only leave us with one way out; Capitalism.

Yes, I know, you think we have capitalism. You think that capitalism is the same as corporatism. The rich is getting richer and Goldman Sachs rules the world. Businesses are getting bailed out while workers get fired. IMF and the Euro is the same as capitalism run amok.

Sadly many believe in such fairy-tales and socialists believe in it so wholeheartedly that they, despite seeing most of the problems of the world (which often is what make them socialist), cannot get out of their fabricated world view.

If you believe that central banks, centralized power, and a mammoth law system is the same as capitalism, you´ve totally misunderstood the entire idea. If you believe that George W Bush or the Tories or the moderate party of Sweden represent capitalism, then you´re not informed.

I already know that we will not choice the path of righteousness, freedom and prosperity, and so the bankruptcy- and debt game will continue and with it so will our continuous decline. The only question in my mind at the moment is; will there be another world war? 

Killing 3 year olds – eugenics is fun!

Sorry, but mommy and daddy has decided to put you down 
- put your finger in this outlet please...  

Abortion is in itself a controversial subject - and it’s the only political or social issue were I always find myself waver.

Being libertarian most issues are automatic, it’s about self-reliance, making own decisions, and fighting to be free from others and free from the state. Most of the time having a libertarian persuasion is consequently reasonably simple; I should be free to make my decisions about myself, my body and my life until I encounter another individual with equal right to his/her body and life.

Comes to abortion however it is not that simple. We´re talking about life after all, but when is the fetus a viable human? After how many months? A woman should have all right to her own body, but should she have so above another human who´s life depends on her decision? Albeit a human only beginning to form.

Putting human life and individuals right to live above all else create a conflict comes to the issue of abortion and I´ve always had a hard time picking a side.

Normally I come to the conclusion that most countries have it about right. This because I cannot in any way or form side with those considering the woman and her right to her body as absolute – not when another life is in the balance, and I can neither side with the other side arguing that life is created and sacred already at conception – if so, why is not each sperm and each egg sacred as well?

Having a couple of months or so to make a decision about abortion is therefore, according to me, a decent compromise.

However, when you start to compromise about life and these kinds of decisions; you always get freaky eugenic trolls like this popping up.

Is a child living on borrowed time until its three years old? And why that limitation? Is a 3,5 year old able to make own decisions or be smart enough to grasp how the government own his or her red butt and can do whatever they want with it. Has a 4y old passed over from parasitic living to become a viable example of human life? Has a 5y old? 6? 7?

If we listen to government and politicians we could assume that the transition to becoming a self-reliant existing being never will occur. Every step of the way, from the cradle to the grave, government entities and different groups owns much, if not all, of us and our decisions.

Could we not make the assumption that government (or our parents) has the right to kill us throughout our entire existence?

Keeping United Nations spokespersons in mind and listening to people like Bill "let´s kill msn" Gates, this notion does not seem as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.

And since we know that there are plenty of Malthusian f*ks roaming around freely, can we not assume then that genocide is always in the cards?

Reading about “scientists” asking for leniency comes to infanticide it seems that we´ve really reach the bottom of the barrel. Not only are our societies crashing before our very eyes due to Fractional Reserve Banking and government running amok – on issue after issue morality too seem to be lost.

Ethics and common sense is no longer part of western societies. Even during the Dark Age´s you could argue that our humanity did not go lost, can we really say the same today?

Regardless I would love to see the first court case were parents snuffed their 2y old because the child was such a burden to family finances and hear these two lowlifes as “experts”.

The world is a fun place, isn´t it?

You gotto love those experts

Been checking around newspapers this morning and just as any blind and deaf leprosy infected monkey would have guessed; the pundits and so called “experts” are out in force telling us why Mittbama Oromney lost to the number 1 choice and current puppet of the banksters.

Of course Mittens is a Mormon and he did a few TV-blunders which both are mentioned by almost every pundit in the western hemisphere as key reasons. Other factors mentioned are Obama´s great re-election campaign and how he showed statesmanship during Sandy. Mittens shortcomings are also frequently mentioned as well as him being too far right (Hahaha!).

So far I´ve not seen any paper mentioning Ron Paul and the more libertarian wing of GOP that either voted for Dr Paul or didn´t vote at all. Those people make up a good portion of voters, perhaps not enough to swing over the win to Romney, but not far off. Even more importantly are the independent voters that could have voted for the Mormon if he´d brought a few Ron Paul ideas to the table or if (even better) if Ron Paul had been the candidate. Ron Paul was in this sense the ONLY republican candidate that stood a chance of beating the warmongering black guy.

But the most important and most significant trait, what really won the election, was how the banksters went all in to keep the scam rolling and how Bernie of the Fed promised unlimited bail-outs and unlimited printing just a few months before the election. Once this happened only a fool could believe that anyone else but the Obamination would win.

Another reason why Mittens Orama lost was that - contrary to what papers say - his politics are almost exactly the same as the sitting presidents. On point after point two presidential candidates have never run on so similar agendas, so why vote for the unknown factor such as a rich Mormon who eats babies when a black well-spoken politically correct guy is already there?

Of course the bankster endorsement, the lacking Libertarian vote and the similarities between candidates will not be part of the consensus. It does not fit into the norm of things.

Looks to me like the debt serf system is functioning spectacularly and completed with wireless Obamanet the show now will go on. Worldwide financial destruction and following wars and cumulating despair is to follow, and so with it further extremism, harsher rule, and Nobel Prizes handed out to camp guards like candy.

The end is nigh folks.