Here’s Joe Biden in 2008, sounding almost line Charlton Heston when he promised that if Obama “tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem“:

Nice.

Via Ted Nugent, who trusts that Biden still maintains those sentiments.

Go Joe!

Ain’t YouTube wonderful?

Al Jazeera is now a US TV network thanks to Al Gore.

“When considering the several suitors who were interested in acquiring Current, it became clear to us that Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current,” Hyatt wrote. “Al Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us.”

Al Jazeera plans to scrap Current’s programming lineup and brand, which never caught on with a critical mass of viewers, and use the channel’s subscriber base of 60 million households as the basis for a new network. A Current spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the reports.

You will also note that Gore and the other owners of the network made sure the sale went through before the new tax rates kicked in.

It is possible that this law suit had something to do with the sale.

“Current’s sudden and public termination of Olbermann was the latest in a series of increasingly erratic and unprofessional actions undertaken by current management,” it claims.

Maybe Olberman’s exit made the network more salable.

A commenter at Watts Up With That I think gets the essence of it.

“Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar”

FYI, Qatar is the world’s largest exporter on LNG, which the US is looking to enter that market as an LNG exporter (and competitor of Qatar) with the excess gas coming from our successful fracking revolution.

None of this is coincidence. This is going to be a propaganda effort, pure & simple.

Well that would explain the “same goals”.

It is humbling that even at my age, I learn about “new” things that astound me, but which are in fact traditional and not new. Earlier it made me feel like an ignoramus to learn about a Catalan religious tradition going back to the 18th century which would seem downright disrespectful to Christianity, but which apparently is not.

A Caganer (Catalan pronunciation: [k????ne], Western Catalan: [ka?a?ne]) is a figurine depicted in the act of defecation appearing in nativity scenes in Catalonia and neighbouring areas with Catalan culture such as Andorra, Valencia, Northern Catalonia (in southern France) and the Balearic Islands. It is most popular and widespread in these areas, but can also be found in other areas of Spain (Murcia), Portugal and southern Italy (Naples).

Origins

The exact origin of the Caganer is lost, but the tradition has existed since at least the 18th century.^[1] According to the Friends of Caganer group (Amics del Caganer), it is believed to have entered the nativity scene by the late 17th- or early 18th-century, during the Baroque period.^[2][3] An Iberian votive deposit was found near Tornabous in the Urgell depicting a holy Iberian warrior defecating on his falcata. This began a short-lived series of polemics between the Institut d’Estudis Catalans and the Departament d’Arqueologia in the Conselleria de Cultura of the Generalitat de Catalunya as to whether the find can be regarded as a proto-caganer (which would place the origin of this tradition far earlier than previously thought) or just a pre-combat ritual.

You would think I’d have known about that, but it was news to me to hear about it earlier today.

They’ve even included an image of Barack Obama getting into the act:

The Catalans have modified this tradition a good deal since the 1940s. In addition to the traditional caganer design, you can easily find other characters assuming the Caganer position, such as nuns, devils, Santa Claus, celebrities, athletes, historical figures, politicians, Spanish royalty, British royalty,^[1] and other famous people past and present. Just days after his election as US president in 2008, a “pooper” of Barack Obama was made available.^[12]

Well! That last link didn’t go anywhere (surprise), but it didn’t take long to find another one:

I’m tempted to say “Holy Shit” but presidential droppings are anything but that.

Most of us (specifically 77%) will have to pay more:

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

But the Hollywood elite (who donated heavily to Obama and company) will pay less:

The Senate passed legislation meant to end the “fiscal cliff” crisis in the wee hours of the morning. And it seems Hollywood’s rigorous backing of President Barack Obama and his Democrat peers in the waning months of 2012 paid off.

Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for “special expensing rules for certain film and television productions.” Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011.

The fiscal cliff deal extends the tax incentives through 2013–even as payroll taxes rise on ordinary Americans.

Lovely.

And naturally, the rich Hollywood paragons of virtue (who would never admit to being “the 1%” they so roundly condemn) are lecturing the rest of us — especially law-abiding people who would never misuse guns —  about the need for gun control. Lest forget that these Constitution haters made billions glamorizing the very thing they condemn, I thought this video was in order:

Despite the obvious hypocrisy, they can make all the gory shoot-em-up films they want. I’m cool with that, and I would never advocate cutting off their constitutional rights in any way.

But I wish they would quit wanting to cut off mine.

Happy New Year!

MORE: The above video may shed some light on why David Gregory might actually thought the gun laws didn’t apply to him. If you’re running around with like-minded people who make violent films about guns (while wanting to ban them), it would be very easy to lose sight of all reality.

H/T JPFO

Treason?

Or treason?

UPDATE: (12:05) Now that it’s the next year I can’t make any more sense of the above than I could last year, but in any case…

… a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to all!

(Perhaps things will be less crazy as time goes on, but perhaps not.)

In his latest endorsement of gun control measures, President Obama said  one thing that is absolutely true:

“I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

I see the above statement as an admission that the real narrative is not the purported one. This is not about dead children in Connecticut. The latter provide merely an opportunity for Obama to ramp up the rhetoric in the hope that he can now do what he has wanted to do all along.

After all, what has he to lose? Gun enthusiasts are hardly his friends. They never have been and they never will be. Not only do they not like him, but it is mutual. He showed his hand back in 2008 with his remarks about people who cling bitterly to their guns and bibles.

And now, thanks to the Connecticut shooting, he has decided that the time has come to pry their guns away from their clinging hands.

I have a question.

Might this be a deliberate plan to disarm political enemies?

It isn’t called that, of course. According to the language of the president’s narrative, it’s all about saving the children:

Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting spree that killed 20 young children.

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

The problem is that there is simply no way to prevent any determined individual — whether “someone with severe psychological problems” or not — from being able to get “high-capacity weapons.” No laws could possibly accomplish that, for the simple reason that those who are determined to do things like murder their own parents before opening fire on children and then killing themselves are about as far from being law-abiding as it is possible to be. Gun control supporters know this too, which is why they like to envision a world in which guns are not available. But they know that’s not going to happen either, so they will support whatever laws they can get even though they realize (and generally admit) that they will never deter a matricidal maniac .

What I think this comes down to is very simple and fills me with revulsion. They are saying to gun owners like me that because there are murderous maniacs out there who are capable of doing anything, we do not trust you. The implication is that all gun owners are either potential maniacs themselves, or else their guns might be stolen from them by maniacs — even if the maniacs had to kill them first. The logic is simple: because that demented kid in Connecticut had to murder his own mother to get her guns, that means no gun owners can ever be trusted.

Now, while I have to admit that it is theoretically possible that a murderous maniac could break into my house, kill me, steal my guns and then use them to kill people, just as that could theoretically happen to any gun owner anywhere, such a theoretical possibility no more justifies banning certain powerful guns than the possibility homicidal carjacking would justify banning powerful cars.

This “we don’t trust you” argument — grounded as it is in the “save the children” narrative — is not only extremely condescending, but it epitomizes the Orwellian nature of nanny statism. Any gun owners dumb enough to fall for it are admitting that they cannot be trusted.

I would say that people who fall for the narrative and think this is “for the children” are pathetic dupes who don’t deserve their freedom, but unfortunately, it’s not their freedom that’s being taken away.

The above picture was from this Yahoo story of Hillary hospitalized with blood clot.

Notice the odd triangular motif on the right? That is not something you normally see in the context of American icons. The caption for the picture reads: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answers questions from the audience at the 2012 Saban Forum on U.S.-Israel relations gala dinner in Washington, in this file photo from November 30.

Why would they choose such a picture to illustrate the blood clot story? Or is my paranoia running away with me again? A common affliction in these times.

I just read something interesting.

The 2012 elections are over and it was a landmark one for women. Female voters made up 54 percent of the electorate, and according to exit polls, 55 percent of those women voted for Obama….

So why have men in effect “stopped voting”? Or more accurately reduced their participation.

The utterance in the title can be heard at about the 5:05 mark.

So what is the video about? The end of college and probably all of education as we know it. The montage in the beginning is especially interesting.

So are teachers really worth what we pay them? Some are worth way more. The rest are worth nothing. Bucky Fuller predicted this over 50 years ago in Education Automation.

As it’s that time of the year (a time I would rather not explain in explicit detail), I’ve been feeling haunted lately. Feeling haunted is a not altogether unpleasant experience, although it it is a little like nostalgia on steroids. Nostalgia is to haunting as pot is to heroin. Or as beer is to Everclear. Whatever.

The haunting has been pleasantly aggravated by some recent reading, which, when coupled with my recent dabblings in beer brewing, led me to suddenly have what I thought was an original idea, but which a simple Google search revealed to be singularly unoriginal. That’s because (as I have learned many times), there is no such thing as a new idea on the Internet.

Anyway, “my” idea was that it would be fun to brew Transylvanian beer, perhaps with genuine Carpathian Mountain water. The American consumer thirst for the macabre being what it is (and me being the morbid sort that I am) it struck me as almost a no-brainer that the man on the label and the name of such a beer would have to be Dracula, Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler…

I had a feeling that this would certainly not be an original idea, and boy was I right!

Not only is there such a beer, but it is brewed right there on Dracula’s land, and the label is owned by Heineken International (which is busily buying up Transylvanian breweries).

Which is fine with me, as I am in no position to do anything other than come up with unoriginal ideas. However, I find it more than a little annoying that such a fine marketing concept has gone absolutely nowhere in the United States where I am sure it would be successful. The above beer is not available anywhere in this country. I scoured the Internet and found nothing, and I even called a major beer outlet (which can find and order even the most obscure brands)  and was told that it did not show up on their large database of beers that can be ordered. Meaning that it is not available in the United States, period.

Whether this is a marketing opportunity for some clever shark of an MBA student, I don’t know, but if there are any who read this, my advice is to jump on it right now! Stake out some new turf! Go for the jugular!

Eric in his post The Most Important Drug War Film I’ll Never See? linked to this Forbes article where I found this comment:

The War on Drugs needs to be replaced with an all-out War Against Drug Dealers to include:
– Death penalty for 2nd & 3rd time offenders, as optional for juries and judges to apply.
- Death penalty for 1st time offenders who are in law enforcement, but make it mandatory. NO SECOND CHANCE.
- Set stiff fines for drug users based on ability to pay, increase their incarceration period to make it intolerable to be a drug user.
- Resort to all the tactics used against terrorist to wipe out the cartel drug leaders everywhere.
- Target government officials everywhere who are assisting drug cartel leaders and go for the ones with greater power, and use the same anti-terrorists tactics against these criminals: WIPE THEM OUT!
- Give top drug cartel leaders 90 to 180 days to appear in court in their home country or in the U. S. and send special forces after that to kill them and at that point forget about arresting them. JUST KILL THE ANIMALS!
- There should be more drug testing of government and private employees, and fire repeat drug offenders from the work-place, but dismiss any fire-fighter, cop or other fist responder on the first proven drug test failure. ZERO TOLERANCE.
===== ELIMINATE THE DEMAND AND ELIMINATE THE SUPPLY ======
- JUST KILL THE DRUG DEALERS AND ITS GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS

A call for “eliminating demand” in the context of the rant is a call for the elimination of 30 million people. Genocide.

This is not your typical prohibitionist. Although given the sample I have run into this person is not atypical either. What happens when the left starts parading this sort of thing around as the typical Republican? The Republican Party IS at this time THE Prohibitionist Party after all. It will discredit all the good ideas (economic mostly) the Republicans stand for.

Well it is interesting to watch a political party commit suicide in real time.

Let me add that I made the Holocaust analogy, which was also made at the end of the film discussed by Eric and Forbes, 13 years ago in How To Put an End to Drug Users a review of R. L. Miller’s book Drug Warriors and Their Prey.

I just checked with Amazon and “Drug Warriors” is featured as a text book. The Republicans are in bigger trouble than I thought.

H/T A list I am on which prefers to remain nameless.

Here’s a trailer to a movie that (according to IMDb) I cannot see because it isn’t anywhere in my area:

A pity I can’t see it, because the Forbes review called it “The Most Important Drug War Film You’ll Ever See.”

It’s a film about the human consequences of execrable War on Drugs and there is a review and interview with the author here:

…The House I Live In, an acclaimed collection of interlocking stories about the mournful human impact of America’s failed war on drugs. Did you know there is a man serving a life sentence in Oklahoma for “trafficking” three ounces of methamphetamine? Did you know that the rise of privately-owned prisons means that there is now a direct financial incentive to incarcerate people?

The 11 months in between these two statements were extraordinarily fruitful ones in this area of law and justice. And almost all of the change seemed to reflect a growing sense of unease, or even disgust, on the part of America’s criminal justice community — lawyers, judges, politicians, prison officials, etc. — a sense that the status quo is unsustainable, that America can no longer afford, on either financial or moral terms, to keep millions of its citizens locked up. It’s too early to label 2012 a turning point in our war against the war on drugs. But it’s not to early to see a definitive trend in that direction.

I’ll believe it when I see it. The main problem with the war on drugs is that it is bipartisan, which makes it nearly impossible to get rid of. And as the film points out, there are huge vested interests in the WoD who will fight like demons to protect their turf.

Fortunately, there are a few dissenting insiders who are willing to speak up, some of whom are featured in the film:

Last month, a federal judge in Iowa, Mark W. Bennett, who appeared in Jarecki’s film, wrote a poignant piece in The Nation. “If we don’t speak up, who will?” he asked.

To his immense credit, Jarecki is speaking up. He says his film is no advocacy piece but rather a movie “driven by real people’s stories.” But the advocacy is there, in virtually every scene. The “real people” Jarecki shows us are complex individuals, generators of sympathy and empathy, outrage and sorrow, sometimes all at the same time. And in that sense, if no other, they are powerful tribunes for the message he seeks to send: Drug crime is caused by drug addiction, drug addiction is a public health matter, and all of us pay in one manner or another for short-sighted policies that treat drug abuse as a matter for the criminal courts.

Jarecki contends that the “war on drugs” is more warlike than any of us are willing to believe and that it has been waged disproportionately for decades on America’s poor. If every lawyer, judge, cop, prison guard, politician, policy maker, and economist in America saw this film, fewer families might be devastated by the “lock-em-up” approach to the problem.

From a constitutional perspective, the war on drugs has been monstrous from the start (as M. Simon and I have pointed out countless times). It has also damaged incalculably the traditional high regard Americans once had for law and law enforcement. In that respect I think it has done more damage than Prohibition did — which is saying something if we consider that earning back respect for the law was a primary reason for repealing Prohibition. (Considering that the advent of the Depression was making new heroes out of bank robbers, the repeal of Prohibition couldn’t have come a moment too soon for those who worried about a restive populace holding authorities in bitter contempt.)

What we tend to forget is that ridiculous as the idea was, Prohibition enforcement was pitifully lame compared to today’s War on Drugs. SWAT Teams did not invade people’s homes. Individuals were not sentenced to lengthy prison terms even for dealing, and ordinary possession of booze was legal. And for those who had a few coins to spare, prescriptions for pure, legal booze could easily be had from doctors who, even if they prescribed for alcoholics, never feared being prosecuted and sent to prison as doctors do today.  Moreover, like it or not, Prohibition was at least constitutional. It was done the right way, by amending the Constitution with what I call the telltale Amendment because it tells us a lot about the constitutional democracy we once were.

But beyond the destruction of respect for law and the harm it caused to millions of people, I think the greatest harm the drug war has done to this country over the past decades is in subverting and destroying the idea that we are a free country with a meaningful Constitution that guarantees, say, the Fourth Amendment right to be free in our persons and papers from unreasonable search and seizure.

I realize that I’m constantly complaining about these things, but earlier I read about the United States Senate’s complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment:

I haven’t passed the bar, but I know a little bit about the 4th Amendment. Have you read it lately? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” it states in plain English, “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That’s all of it.

The landline in your house? The government needs a warrant to tap it. The letters in your mailbox? The government needs a warrant to read ‘em. It’s like the Framers said: probable cause is required.

Yet a text or an email, even one sent from your bed, is treated differently — it’s afforded much less protection from government snoops, even though we’re increasingly going all digital in our communication.

Why?

Read it all. Congress also accords the Fifth Amendment with similar disrespect. And we all know how much respect the bastards have for the Second Amendment, don’t we?

At the rate we are going, the United States Constitution will become like the famous Soviet Constitution under Stalin, which guaranteed all sorts of rights, but which meant absolutely nothing because it wasn’t observed in any way, shape or form.

How did America reach the point where the Constitution has come to mean next to nothing? It did not happen overnight, but I think that over the long run, the war on drugs did more to get us where we are today than almost any single factor.

A government that can tell you what you can and cannot put in your body can certainly regulate your medical care. A government that can make it a felony to grow unapproved plants in your backyard can certainly make unapproved wood a felony. A government that can break down your door and invade your house with lethal force to look for evidence of victimless crime can certainly read your email. A government that can lock you up for life for possessing a disapproved substance can certainly declare you a terrorist and lock you up.

Etc.

Law student Cody Wilson has made a gun. In his “bedroom”. With a 3D printer.

He defends his project (he has released the source code) and why he did it. But some of the most interesting stuff is in the comments. Like this one:

Cody should be in jail. The second amendment is so that americans can protect themselves. Not so that any criminal, insane person or suicidal one has access to cheap untraceable guns. This gives any tech savvy person the ability to print weapons, and we all know how easy it is to buy ammunition in the states.

He’s only right about one thing, he’s picking the low hanging fruit. This puts cheap weapons in the hands of terrorists, homegrown and foreign.

As if terrorists, the insane, and criminals can’t get their hands on guns now.

We have here another human who confuses words with reality. The kind of people who believe that “prohibited” means unavailable. Wm. Burroughs called such thinking the word virus.

While I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, I’m furious over Facebook’s latest outrage.

Via the ever-vigilant Bill Quick, I learned that Facebook has banned the following accurate historical quote from Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi:

(NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook’s censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a “final warning” that one more violation of their so-called “community guidelines” would result in our account being permanently deactivated.

Asks Bill Quick, “Why do you hate America, Facebook?”

Good question. I’d also like to know why Facebook hates history.

Might the moronic control freaks think they should be in charge of Truth?

MORE: I promptly quoted linked the above Gandhi quote (which is also on Gandhi’s Wiki page) on my Facebook page, and I will keep readers apprised in the event of any retaliation.

And if I may put my sentiments in Gandhian terms,

Among the many misdeeds of Facebook rule in America, history will look upon its censorship of Gandhi as the blackest.

UPDATE: As one good quote deserves another, I think that this situation calls for a quote from the Dalai Lama:

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001).

Does Facebook know?

Just as I thought the chorus of blaming anyone and anything but the shooter for the Connecticut school shooting was beginning to wind down, along comes Michael Moore with one of the most idiotic claims yet.

He sees racism as being at the root of the problem. No, seriously. According to Moore’s “logic,” the shooting was caused by the fact that Americans have too many guns, and the reason they have so many guns is because the guns are mainly in the hands of white people who fear and are itching to shoot black people:

…Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?

No. It’s because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what’s the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?

I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.

Not that logic would matter to such a nutjob as Michael Moore, but if we were to assume he is right about whites wanting to shoot black people, then we would expect to see this reflected in shooting statistics. What the statistics show is precisely the opposite. According to the official data showing the races of all shooters and their victims, white against black shooting incidents rank at the very bottom. Whites overwhelming kill and are killed by whites, and blacks by blacks:

• 86% of white victims were killed by whites
• 94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Of course, the race-obsessed Moore probably would say that white racism drives white people to kill white people and black people to kill black people.

He calls the above (and other communitarian commie blather) “food for thought as we head home for the holidays” and advises his readers thusly:

Don’t forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can’t nail a deer in three shots – and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds – you’re not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun.

He will? I have plenty of conservative friends, and I never heard a single one of them talk that way. I know plenty of gun owners. Some are hunters, some not. But none of them think the Second Amendment is about hunting. Gun ownership is not about “nailing a deer in three shots,” nor is the right to keep and bear arms. Hunting is only one of the uses of firearms, and is secondary in importance to self defense.

But to Moore’s imaginary “conservative,” it’s all about hunting. The logic of the above is simple:

If you’re not a hunter, you have no business owning a gun.

Any hunter who supports gun control by buying into the pretense that the left wants to create a special exception for hunters is a despicable fool, and an enemy of the Second Amendment.

Reading this pissed me off.

If you’re angry, for the benefit of your health, you need to let it all out, according to a new study that revealed that being hot-tempered and expressing your anger could be a key to enjoying a long and healthy life.

Researchers Marcus Mund and Kristin Mitte at the University of Jena in Germany claim that the latest findings may explain why the hotheaded Italians and Spanish live almost two years longer than the cool English who “keep calm and carry on”.

They found that exhibiting self-restraint and holding back negative emotions could have serious repercussions for a person’s physical and mental well-being.

Perhaps I should be more pissed. I try to control myself, and I use this blog as a control mechanism. It has always seemed to me that calming down is better than the alternative. But maybe I should lose my temper more often; it might be good for me.

Actually, I lose my temper in my private life a lot more than I do in this blog.  I use the blog as a calming agent. Here, I try to be logical and analytical.  Whether that means the blog is shortening my life, who knows? If it is bad to be logical and analytical, then perhaps I am asking for trouble and should just hurl insults and say “FUCK YOU!” But I’d feel like an asshole.

Hmm…

Do assholes live longer?

I came across this report and got scared witless. This is supposedly a conversation between two people. One of which is Doug Hagman (DH).

DH: Whoa, wait a minute. You just said a mouthful. What’s the agenda here?

RB: Your intelligence insider – he knows that we are facing a planned economic collapse. You wrote about this in your articles about Benghazi, or at least that’s what I got out of the later articles. So why the surprise?

DH: There’s a lot here. Let’s take it step by step if you don’t mind.

RB: Okay, but I’m not going to give it to you in baby steps. Big boy steps. This is what I am hearing. Life for the average American is going to change significantly, and not the change people expect. First, DHS is preparing to work with police departments and the TSA to respond to civil uprisings that will happen when there is a financial panic. And there will be one, maybe as early as this spring, when the dollar won’t get you a gumball. I’m not sure what the catalyst will be, but I’ve heard rumblings about a derivatives crisis as well as an oil embargo. I don’t know, that’s not my department. But something is going to happen to collapse the dollar, which has been in the works since the 1990?s. Now if it does not happen as soon as this, it’s because there are people, real patriots, who are working to prevent this, so it’s a fluid dynamic. But that doesn’t change the preparations.

And the preparations are these: DHS is prepositioning assets in strategic areas near urban centers all across the country. Storage depots. Armories. And even detainment facilities, known as FEMA camps. FEMA does not even know that the facilities are earmarked for detainment by executive orders, at least not in the traditional sense they were intended. By the way, people drive by some of these armories everyday without even giving them a second look. Commercial and business real estate across the country are being bought up or leased for storage purposes. Very low profile.

Anyway, I am hearing that the plan from on high is to let the chaos play out for a while, making ordinary citizens beg for troops to be deployed to restore order. but it’s all organized to make them appear as good guys. That’s when the real head knocking will take place. We’re talking travel restrictions, which should no be a problem because gas will be rationed or unavailable. The TSA will be in charge of travel, or at least be a big part of it. They will be commissioned, upgraded from their current status.

They, I mean Jarrett and Obama as well as a few others in government, are working to create a perfect storm too. This is being timed to coincide with new gun laws.

DH: New federal gun laws?

RB: Yes. Count on the criminalization to possess just about every gun you can think of. Not only restrictions, but actual criminalization of possessing a banned firearm. I heard this directly from the highest of my sources. Plans were made in the 90?s but were withheld. Now, it’s a new day, a new time, and they are riding the wave of emotion from Sandy Hook., which, by the way and as tragic as it was, well, it stinks to high heaven. I mean there are many things wrong there, and first reports are fast disappearing. The narrative is being changed. Look, there is something wrong with Sandy Hook, but if you write it, you’ll be called a kook or worse.

Well that was bad enough. Then I read this.

Make of it what you will. You can read more at Doug Hagman’s main page, which includes this gem: Insight into the Illuminati.