Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts
Local Blogs
Miscellaneous


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > This Just In
Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old January 19th, 2011 #1
-JC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,316
-JC
Default Here's the piece ito forward on "alleged" AZ shooter Loughner...

LINK to original that includes that great, crazy-eyed, Pima County Sheriff's photo: http://www.davidduke.com/general/liberal-attempt-to-exploit-arizona-tragedy-falls-flat_22345.html#more-22345

Liberal Attempt to Exploit Arizona Tragedy Falls Flat

by Ian Mosley

Isn’t it interesting how the Democrats always seem to have these ready-made laws lying around in a drawer somewhere, just waiting for some incident to occur so they can pull them out and try to ram them through while everyone is still confused and running around like chickens with their heads cut off? When the 911 incident happened Senator Charles Schumer had all sorts of police state legislation printed up and ready to go into law.

An article on Antiwar.com reports: “Shortly after the shooting of Rep. Giffords (D – AZ) in Tucson on Saturday, officials and pundits from across the political spectrum were looking to make political hay out of it, struggling to tie the shooter to some rival political faction or other. Now, however, a number of Congressmen are looking to turn that endeavor into a more concerted effort to introduce a series of new curbs on political speech, particularly political dissent, insisting that certain criticism of seated officials is too incendiary to be allowed.”

This, of course, is the very situation which the United States Constitution was intended to prevent: The government itself deciding the subject matter and parameters of what criticism of itself is allowed, and who may make such criticism, and in what forum.

The Antiwar article notes “Rep. Brady (D – PA) has promised to introduce new legislation to criminalize any political speech which could be perceived as incendiary, and other Democrats suggested that there should be a blanket ban on all speech and symbols which might be conceivably interpreted as incendiary against members of Congress. Brady went on to claim that a number of Congressmen’s wives were terrified to hear of the shooting and questioning whether it was safe to remain in Congress. He insisted the only solution to this was to curb political speech. ‘The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,’ Brady insisted.”

In view of what the Democrats have done to this country over the past two years, yes, I would imagine that they are quite correct in being “terrified to remain in Congress.” Oh, I’m sorry, am I not allowed to say that? Is it “too incendiary?”

The people criticizing Congress are telling the truth. If the truth makes the Democrats too uncomfortable, I’d rather see the Democrats retire than truth be forced into retirement.

Antiwar.com goes on: “The ability of Congress to pass such a bill is likely not in doubt, but convincing the courts to allow broad-based censorship of explicitly political speech is likely to be an uphill battle. For some officials, this means that the effort should be more regulatory than legal. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D – NY) insisted that the FCC should work hard to restrict political speech that could incite people, adding that no one owns the airwaves and that she clearly felt the FCC was not doing enough to regulate political commentary nor to sanction those whose criticism were unacceptable to her.”

Now, wait a second. I thought the Republicans just took over the House and the Tea Party played a big role in this political change. The 2010 election was not just a rebellion against Democrats; it was a rebellion against incumbent politicians in both parties. Americans want an end to police state legislation. They want the TSA to disappear. They want warrant-less wiretaps to stop.

As more information comes out, it turns out the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords was the work of a lunatic, who was banned from college pending a mental examination. Jared Loughner’s friends describe him as liberal, Jewish and disturbed. If anything should be done, we should improve ways of spotting mental illness and committing dangerous people before they go on a shooting spree. The big problem however is that the gigantic Third World population in the US has drained away all the money that should have gone to things like mental asylums.
__________________
If the American people ever allow a central bank to control of the issuance of their currency, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will, first by inflation and then by deflation, deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. –Thomas Jefferson
 
Old January 19th, 2011 #2
Rob Ivy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 707
Rob Ivy
Default

The problem is that you cannot commit crazy people before they go on a shooting spree, although you can hold them in a mental facility for 72 hours if they appear to be a threat to themselves or others.

The ACLU sued the Reagan administration in the 80's to release those who had been committed to asylums based on the argument that such practices violated their Constitutional rights. The courts decided in favor of the ACLU, and all those who were committed were released, which resulted in the 'Homeless Problem' that persists to this very day.

I guess you could call it karma, in that this was a Liberal who was shot in the head by an obvious lunatic that should have been locked-up in an insane asylum a long time ago, where he would be medicated and content to sit in a corner fingering his own ass crack and sniffing his finger.
 
Old January 19th, 2011 #3
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Promoting free speech in the jew-occupied Kwa
Posts: 3,779
H.B.
Default

Quote:
Congressmen’s wives were terrified to hear of the shooting and questioning whether it was safe to remain in Congress
Now that's EXTREME cowardice.

Compare this perceived danger with the real danger our men and women in uniform face every day fighting their jew wars.

What is it that they say about a government which fears its people?
__________________
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. WE WILL FOREVER DESTROY because we want a world of our own." - Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles
 
Old January 19th, 2011 #4
Rob Ivy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 707
Rob Ivy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
Now that's EXTREME cowardice.

Compare this perceived danger with the real danger our men and women in uniform face every day fighting their jew wars.

What is it that they say about a government which fears its people?
Yeah, the last thing that politicians need is to have ex-special forces working as their personal body guards on the taxpayers dime and thinking that they are untouchable and unaccountable for their actions.

That is what they do in third world dictatorships to control their positions of power.

Not as though these pricks don't behave like that anyway. They just don't need any additional reinforcement or encouragement.

If politicians are concerned about their safety, they can go buy and carry a gun just like every other citizen, that is if they can pass the same background check that the rest of us is forced to submit to.

That reminds me, a month ago Biden and Obama were here to give a speech to employees at the local Chrysler plant.

I never seen so many damn cops in my life! local city cops, county sheriffs, state police - but then I noticed that there were cops from cities and counties from all across the state.

Of course it wasn't the Feds picking up the tab for these costs, it was the taxpayers of Indiana.
 
Old January 20th, 2011 #5
-JC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,316
-JC
Default One of the problems is that Whites like Kevin MacDonald don't dominate psychiatry...

Scroll-down the "Poet Ezra Pound" in this thread: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=97458

Given more freedom, who'ya think They are going to lock-up, those good for Whites or those homeless, et al., who are bad for Whites? Consider how dissidents were handled when the usual suspects came to power in the Soviet Union.
__________________
If the American people ever allow a central bank to control of the issuance of their currency, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will, first by inflation and then by deflation, deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. –Thomas Jefferson
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.
Page generated in 0.07419 seconds.

VNN on Twitter