Skip to content

A New Assault Coming on 2nd Amendment Rights?

December 15, 2012

As we grieve with the parents of lost children there is nothing more tragic than what is becoming all too familiar to us- “School Shootings.” We all can identify with the senseless killings of INNOCENTS.

What can be more heartbreaking than seeing children killed as the reason for killing by someone with mental problems thinking their deaths will comfort their tortured souls.

Brace yourself for the next assault!  The politicization of the school shootings. Mayor Bloomberg, an Obama water bearer, is already touting gun control from his municipal pulpit demanding Obama take immediate action.

“In a statement released Friday afternoon, Bloomberg noted that Obama rightly sent his condolences to the families in Newtown, but urged the president to immediately introduce reforms that would create more restrictions around gun control. He is the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of more than 600 mayors who support gun control initiatives, through which he issued the statement.”

“The country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem,” Bloomberg wrote. “Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response.”

Gun control should begin at the most basic level. OUTLAW the VIOLENCE in movies,  tv and video games!  Kids spend their time at home time playing video games using  their free time learning about weapon use and pretend killing. Bad role model for latch-key kids.

It is almost an impossibility to find a movie on cable that it’s central theme isn’t about FEAR and VIOLENCE. If the government wants to curb gun violence, begin with what our children are watching on tv and at the movies.  Prevent the video games available out there from falling into their hands as a babysitting tool passing the time away while the parents are away at work.

It is being reported, the 20 yr old Adam Lanza, was a mentally disturbed boy possibly autistic, who took out his rage and despair on the innocent students attending the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT.

Rather than working to disarm a country of citizens, perhaps addressing people diagnosed with mental problems need to be handled differently than they are now. To date, every single instance of mass shootings has been by people who have mental problems. From the Food Hood Massacre to Gabby Giffords.. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, the common thread among the shooters has been their mental instability as responsible for their deranged thinking and the killing of innocent people.

News just in-  saying Lanza’s Mom was NOT a teacher at the school.  School officials saying her name does not appear on any school roles in any capacity saying she may have been a school volunteer or an infrequent substitute teacher.

At any rate, this tragedy will be Obama’s springboard for another attempt at disarming ALL of America.  Thereby allowing government officials to be the sole bearers of  GUNS leaving Americans completely defenseless in the face of a potential totalitarian government takeover.

  1. December 17, 2012 7:17 pm

    Basil- Yup.. something smells rotten in Denmark for sure!

    Looks like there has been some outside influence contrived to create a predetermined result. Another CIA black Ops I suppose.

    The first video at PP the audio was blocked out with a buzzing sound where the narration was inaudible.. but the video graphics bear out what witnesses saw at the scene. Noting the man had been captured and was sitting handcuffed in the police car.

    A second man was indeed present when the shooter entered the school.
    IOW- Adam Lanza WAS NOT ALONE! No major news coverage on that…

    On another note- police report, Adams computer had been trashed, virtually destroyed.
    The 2nd man may have done that and pulled the trigger on Adams Mom.. not him…

    Another COVER-UP… yup!

  2. December 17, 2012 7:55 pm

    It’s friggin scary as he11. I mean, I hated Bush and knew he was lying about Iraq but I never felt his entire presidency was a lie and I never felt he was out to destroy the country.

    Everything about the pos, from his origins, his religion, his college records, his Muslim connections, is a lie. Everything.

    Or like BC called it, a fairy tale – turned horror story. Our national nightmare. Wonder if we’ll ever waken from it.

  3. December 18, 2012 9:27 am

    I needed a laugh today.

    From Ace.

    The Dissident Frogman explains guns to the media

  4. December 18, 2012 6:38 pm

    EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap
    By Jana Winter

    NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

    Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims’ families worship.

    “From what I’ve been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,” Flashman told “Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”
    A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza’s anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

    “He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry.”

    Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

    Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza’s victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.

    Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

    “Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed,” Flashman said. “I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore.”

    The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit’s end.

    A separate neighborhood source also told that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

  5. December 18, 2012 9:29 pm

    Sounds like a plausible story.. but where does the second dude arrested at the scene of the crime fit in? I haven’t seen any headlines notifying the public of his existence, (even-) (old joke)

    The trashed computer found in Lanza’s bedroom has info on it ( e-mails) that may shed light on who he was in contact with long before the rampage. I don’t believe he acted alone.

    BUT! Will that info ever be made public?

    I’m amazed gun owners are coming out and making a point of correcting Big Media’s mis-characterization of the BushMaster Rifle as an automatic assault weapon when it isn’t.

    Really puts a crimp in Obama’s campaign against gun ownership.

  6. December 18, 2012 9:38 pm

    Black Bloc anarchist Mark Provost, co-founder of #OccupytheNRA and another #OWS hypocrite

    courtesy of our friend Brenda Elliot

    December 18, 2012

    Lying Liars: Black Bloc anarchist Mark Provost, co-founder of #OccupytheNRA and another #OWS hypocrite

    Occupy Wall Street never saw a crisis it could not exploit. This time it took no time at all for an OWS branch of gun control crazies — Occupy the NRA — to issue a call to arms (no pun intended) to organize and capitalize on Friday’s horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

    “In recent months, Occupy Wall Street has proven to be a versatile force capable of tackling a variety of issues from inequality to Hurricane Sandy to crippling debt,” Allison Kilkenny wrote yesterday in the leftist rag, The Nation.

    Kilkenny (her real name), continued:

    Now, an offshoot of the original movement says it plans to unleash the power of the 99 percent on the National Rifle Association.

    In the wake of the tragic elementary school massacre in Connecticut, the group launched Friday afternoon with a Facebook page, “Occupy the NRA,” which currently has over 3,300 likes.

    The group’s first post was a picture of an assault weapon with overlaid text: “The US has 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for half of all firearms worldwide and 80% of the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries.” The image has been shared over 8,300 times and liked by 655 people.

    Another post lists the contact information for every NRA board member and encourages the page’s followers to write, e-mail, call, and “ask them how many more children, parents, sisters, and brothers must die before they’ll agree to truly effective gun control.”

    Ironically, the newly-minted protest group’s leader is Mark Provost of my home state, New Hampshire. If you are not aware, our state’s motto is “Live Free or Die”. Obviously, Provost does not subscribe to that belief.

    On his Twitter profile page, Provost self identifies thusly: “Economic journalist focused on US income and wealth inequality, Occupier.”

    But Provost is so much more.

    In January 2012, Provost heckled then Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney:

    Occupy New Hampshire activist Mark Provost made national headlines Wednesday when he attended a town-hall meeting hosted by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and asked about his past comment that “corporations are people.” Provost’s question to Romney came as Occupy New Hampshire is preparing for a series of events leading up to the state’s Republican primary to highlight the disproportionate impact corporations and wealthy donors have on the political process. We play an excerpt of the town-hall exchange and get Provost’s response to Romney reply. “I think his response really, again, is this denial that there’s this class in the country and that there are some people within the corporation, specifically the workers, that are taking it on the chin so that the United States’ executive management can make massive bonuses, and serve their shareholders rather well, too, because the profits largely go to capital gains and dividends.”

    Provost, however, is an equal opportunity heckler. In November 2011, at an Obama event in Manchester, NH, Provost went on the attack:

    President Barack Obama got a rude reception from a few protesters in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

    The President was temporarily thrown off his stride when Occupy protesters interrupted his speech.

    The protesters asked the President to help stop what they see as police brutality being waged on their members.

    “I want the President to immediately direct his justice department to…any police officer or any police chief who does not respect the First Amendment,” said Mark Provost, an Occupy protester.

    After listening patiently, the President asked for his turn to speak and was given a polite applause when he acknowledged the protesters.

    “So a lot of the folks who have been down in New York and all across the country in the Occupy movement, there is a profound sense of frustration,” said Obama.

    It’s always good for budding anarchists to know the Preezy is on their side.

    NATOblackblockIt just so happens that the photo ID for Provost’s Twitter profile picture bears the label “NATOblackblock”.

    The Wikipedia article for “Black bloc” reports:

    A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches where individuals wear black clothing, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding, or other face-concealing and face-protecting items. The clothing is used to conceal marchers’ identities, allow them to appear as one large unified mass, and promote solidarity.

    read the rest:

  7. December 18, 2012 10:11 pm

    Also from Brenda:

    John Batchelor writes on his blog:

    Spoke to Eli Lake, Malcolm Hoenlein, and Reza Khalili with regard to the Middle East minefield, and what is to be done with the predator state of Iran.

    The new Hollywood version of what is to be done, Zero Dark Thirty, presents the horse opera scenario of how to win a war. Find the boss villain hidden in the lush despair of the Hindu Kush and kill him. The hunt for Bin Laden looks more like a video game than an historical event.

    It may be that the fight against the Devils of Tehran is now so vast and unpredictable that we can only soothe ourselves with a fairy tale of a righteous ending such as the Bin Laden gambit: the beast is slain, long live the king. Bin Laden was a gangster who puffed himself up to be a revolutionary. At the end, Bin Laden was a vain, weary, impotent foil for other men’s ambitions. Killing Bin Laden answered no questions in the long-running war with the Devils.

    The Devils

    Tehran is the enemy, and it will not wait to be defeated by lightly-armed operators shooting into a hole as in the Bin Laden end.

    Reza Kahlili tells me his sources report a biowar factory buried in the hillside outside of metropolitan Tehran, employing Russian techs to weaponize anthrax, encephalitis and worse. Carved in the hillside by the factory, visible on Google Earth, is the Farsi symbol for “Ya-Mahdi,” meaning the 12th Imam is coming after chaos and war sweep the earth.

    This is a measure of the genuine threat of Tehran. The Supreme Leader is not a stick figure middle-aged man like Bin Laden who bullies women and boasts of his piety. Rather, the Supreme Leader commands to the death the NBC-loaded IRGC of Iran, waiting to launch a genocidal war against Israel in order to trigger more mass murder in the Middle East.

    It can sound far-fetched to state the war aims of men who practice torture at home in Tehran and ignite missile salvos on innocents abroad as in Syria. The plain fact is that the Twelvers of Tehran are a murder cult in the same way the Hitlerites and their Death’s Head cult were in 1939 when the Germans punched into Poland.

    The IRGC has long since crossed the boundary between good and evil. Hollywood does not have a script for how, when the darkness visible of the Devils falls across the lands, it cannot be lifted without answering with a violence that never ends happily or righteously — and sometimes not for eighty or one hundred years.

    Many explanatory links within the main:

  8. December 19, 2012 7:02 am

    Well, Shadowfax, most of the genuine Hillary supporters have been run off of 44 for a very long time. The reason why I LUV this space. None of them would dare come here with their pseudo analytics they divine to know based on what they read. No one but Hillary knows why she has chosen her path unless she decides to tell us. I’m glad you are still at 44 and holding up nicely under the now daily assaults.

    I won’t write my thoughts about Hillary here because they are 180 degrees opposite of what anyone else has ever written at 44 and wouldn’t want to be a spoiler for Hillary’s current path.

  9. December 19, 2012 1:34 pm

    I would have thought the obvious cause for the lack of security at the consulate compound was the House had cut funding to Hillary’s State Budget for security.. No?

  10. December 19, 2012 5:40 pm

    Say what you want about Benghazi but I don’t believe Hillary had any part in giving the order to our Commandeers to STAND DOWN from sending help to the four Americans under siege at the Libyan consulate. She may know who did it… but can’t prove it!

    Whoever gave the order whether it was Obama, Jarret or Panetta the investigating committee needs to continue seeking an answer to that ONE very important question.

    THE ONLY QUESTION we need an answer to IS:



    I really don’t want to read or hear about sub standard fire codes at the compound or equipment failure responsible for Stevens death… The fact is they could have been saved and someone said, don’t move a muscle to save Stevens. Unfortunately, the 3 former Seals were brave enough to attempt a standoff defending the Ambassador until reinforcement would arrive. I can just imagine the fear running through their minds after so much time had elapsed knowing, help should have arrived long ago, still fighting knowing no help would be forthcoming.

    May whoever gave that order have sleepless nights for the rest of their lives!

    Cover-Up: Benghazi Review Board Says Nobody Should Be Held Responsible

    Secretary Clinton’s “Accountability Review Board” (ARB) declared multiple times in its unclassified report that although there were multiple failures in leadership, “management ability,” allocation of security resources and communication, the board could not find “reasonable cause” to discipline (or even name) one person in the State Department.

    The report states that there was a breakdown in communication between Libya and Washington. It confirmed previous testimony given on Capitol Hill that the personnel in Libya did ask for increased security. However, the ARB found that those working at the embassy in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy” for increased security at the “special mission” in Benghazi.
    The report goes on to say that the diplomatic security staff in Benghazi in “the months and weeks” leading up to the attack (and on the day of the attack) was “inadequate, despite repeated requests.” The ARB found that the security of the Benghazi special mission “was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing.”

    Amazingly, however, the ARB made sure to extensively absolve anyone in the State Department from being accused of being derelict of their duty:

    The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.

    According to the ARB, being “proactive” in leadership and having competent “management ability” is not considered the “duty” of a U.S. government employee. The report goes on to say, essentially, that although there were “systematic failures” at “senior levels” in the State Department, they did not fire IEDs or physically attack the Benghazi facility so they are not in any way responsible for the attack or the deaths of our four American heroes:

    Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place. Through the course of its inquiry, the Board interviewed over 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and viewed hours of video footage. On the basis of its comprehensive review of this information, the Board remains fully convinced that responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack.

    The report closes by saying that those in “critical positions of authority” (though the unclassified report notably fails to mention any names) “demonstrated a lack” of leadership and management “appropriate” for the Department’s “senior ranks.” But, no one should be held responsible for these attacks except for the terrorists themselves. The ARB states that it could not find “reasonable cause” to fire, or even discipline, any member of the State Department:

    The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.

  11. December 19, 2012 7:09 pm

    Good! They ought to cancel Tarantino’s Actors Guild Card while they’re at it!

    Shame on Jaime Foxx. Send Foxx to the woodshed as well. He can kill white people all he wants in his dreams after ‘they’ helped pave his way to stardom.. The welcome mat has been removed from his home state of Texas.

    Weinstein Chains ‘Django’: L.A. Premiere Cancelled

    “The massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, producer Harvey Weinstein has cancelled the Los Angeles premiere of Quentin Tarantino’s blood-soaked new Jamie Foxx vehicle, Django Unchained. A representative of The Weinstein Company announced, “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the tragedy in Newtown, CT, and in this time of national mourning we have decided to forego our scheduled event. However, we will be holding a private screening for the cast and crew and their friends and families.”

  12. December 19, 2012 9:29 pm

  13. December 19, 2012 9:37 pm

    More Americans Want School Officials Armed Than Assault Weapons Banned

    December 19, 2012

    PRINCETON, NJ — Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.


  14. JanH permalink
    December 19, 2012 10:14 pm

    Hillary Clinton not responsible for Benghazi shortcomings, finds probe

    December 20, 2012

    Washington: The leaders of an official inquiry into the fatal attack on a US mission in Benghazi, Libya, did not find Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responsible for security lapses even as they outlined widespread failings within her department.

    The unclassified version of the report, released late on Tuesday by the State Department, concluded that the mission was completely unprepared to deal with a September 11 attack that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    Responsibility for security shortcomings in Benghazi lay farther down the State Department command chain, said Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who lead the inquiry.

    “We fixed (responsibility) at the assistant secretary level, which is, in our view, the appropriate place to look for where the decision-making in fact takes place, where – if you like – the rubber hits the road,” Pickering said after closed-door meetings with congressional committees.

    A deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern affairs resigned after the report, a Capitol Hill source said. Media outlets reported other resignations, including Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, one of his deputies and another official.

    State Department officials declined to comment.

    The report by the Accountability Review Board probing the attack and comments by its two lead authors suggested that Clinton, who accepted responsibility for the incident, would not be held personally culpable.

    “The secretary of state has been very clear about taking responsibility here, it was from my perspective not reasonable in terms of her having a specific level of knowledge,” said retired Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other inquiry leader.

    Pickering and Mullen spoke to the media after briefing members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee behind closed doors on classified elements of their report.

    Clinton had been expected to appear at an open hearing on Benghazi on Thursday, but is recuperating after suffering a concussion, dehydration and a stomach bug last week and will instead be represented by her top two deputies.

    “Grossly inadequate”

    The unclassified version of the report cited “leadership and management” deficiencies, poor coordination among officials and “real confusion” in Washington and in the field over who had the authority to make decisions on policy and security concerns.

    The scathing report could tarnish Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary of state, which has seen her consistently rated as the most popular member of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet.

    Clinton, who intends to step down in January, said in a letter accompanying the review that she would adopt all of its recommendations, which include stepping up security staffing and requesting more money to fortify US facilities.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, which is expected to go to Congress for final approval this week, includes directing the Pentagon increase the Marine Corps presence at diplomatic facilities by up to 1,000 Marines.

    Some Capitol Hill Republicans who had criticised the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks said they were impressed by the report.

    “It was very thorough,” said Senator Johnny Isakson. Another Republican, Senator John Barrasso said: “It was very, very critical of major failures at the State Department at very high levels.” Both spoke after the closed-door briefing.

    But Republicans continued to call for Clinton to testify as soon as she is able.

    Senator Bob Corker, who will be the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the new Congress is seated early next year, said Clinton should testify about Benghazi before her replacement is confirmed by the Senate.

    “I do think it’s imperative for all concerned that she testify in an open session prior to any changing of the regime,” Corker said.

    Republicans have focused much of their firepower on US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on television talk shows after the attack and suggested it was the result of a spontaneous protest rather than a premeditated attack.

    The report concluded that there was no such protest.

    Rice, widely seen as President Barack Obama’s top pick for the State job, withdrew her name from consideration last week.

  15. December 20, 2012 9:03 am

    jan h,

    Please get real. The report basically said no one was to blame, including the pos, which is a crock of you-know-what. It was, is and remains a coverup.

    It also states there was NO protest, the video had NOTHING to do with the massacre. Those were the talking points for 2 weeks out if the administration and she went along with it.

  16. December 20, 2012 9:05 am


    Good find. I will watch later.

    Tellurian permalink*
    December 19, 2012 9:29 pm

  17. December 20, 2012 10:29 am

    Warning Labels Can’t Stop Violence

    December 20, 2012 by Brenda J. Elliott

    We’ve been here before.

    “The lobbying arm of the video game industry is remaining silent amid growing calls on Capitol Hill for new restrictions on violent games,” Brendan Sasso writes in The Hill. “While the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last week has sparked debates over gun control and mental-health services, lawmakers are also calling attention to the influence of violent movies, TV shows and video games.”

    Although a trilateral team of civic-minded lawmakers — Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) — “have all called for Congress to examine whether games contribute to real-world violence,” the chance that there will be any changes is slim.

    Sasso continues:

    Rockefeller, the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced a bill this week that would require the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and other content on children.

    An aide said the bill is being fast-tracked in the Senate, but there might not be enough time left in the year for a vote.

    “Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.”

    At an event on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to discuss children’s privacy regulations, Rockefeller said efforts to address violence in video games have gained momentum because of the shooting in Connecticut.

    “I think it’s a very different atmosphere than it was a week ago,” he said.

    But it is unclear whether Congress could pass any restrictions that would pass muster with the courts.

    Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors, ruling that the ban violated the constitutional right to free speech.

    “Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion.

    Not listed is “porn rock” music, a target in the late 1980s for liberal Democrat “Washington crusader,” later Veep wife, Tipper Gore.

    Gore’s 1987 book, Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society, was reviewed that July by Michele Landsberg, a Canadian author and columnist for The Globe & Mail.

    Landsberg, a self-identified “feminist and democratic socialist”, was unhappy with Gore’s approach — “liberal and concerned” but carefully avoiding “calling this ‘sexism’ or ‘male domination.’”

    The real villain, Landsberg wrote, was “enterprise capitalism”, including the “progressive claque” of “musicians, record companies, Village Voice music critics, Rolling Stone and the civil libertarian establishment [which] hurl their epithets (‘Housewives,’ ‘Witch hunt,’ ‘Censorship’) but have never for a moment taken seriously the idea that their beloved freedom of expression preys on, exploits and deforms female sexuality and the female body.”

    Not much has changed. Just search the internet for articles on the portrayal of women in video games.

    For example, we fastforward for a moment to July 2012. Alyssa Rosenberg wrote about “Anita Sarkeesian, Video Game Rape Culture, and Why Online Harassment Is Not a Joke,” at the Soros-funded Think Progress.

    … And as a media critic who does a lot of feminist work, I hate the fact that I’m grateful for the fact that I’m not harassed for doing my job.

    Which is why I was so angry to hear about what’s happened to Anita Sarkeesian. For anyone who’s unfamiliar with her plight, Sarkeesian wanted to start a project to cover a subject that’s not exactly radical: the portrayal of women in video games. Her YouTube account, in which she explains the project, was flooded with comments equating her to the KKK, calling her a “[f**king] hypocrite slut,” comparing the project to an act of war, and flagging the video as promoting hatred or violence. Her Wikipedia page was vandalized, her picture replaced with pornographic images, and people tried to get the Kickstarter proposal Sarkeesian was using to raise money to support the project shut down. Fortunately, in this case, despite past issues with harassment victims, it seems like Kickstarter’s been more helpful to Sarkeesian than not.

    But the whole incident is a reminder of how deeply some men are invested not simply in the structures that provide them tangible advantages, but in the conventions that let them wallow in culture that indulges their worst, stupidest impulses. And if folks are willing to fight this hard against someone doing criticism of culture, there are others who will do worse to preserve the laws that give them privilege in the world. Culture in this area, as in so many others, is a canary in a coal mine. And women who complain about online harassment aren’t being oversensitive: they’re trying to stop an ugly cycle before it spirals out of control. Both psychologically and substantively, it’s key to our ability to do our work.

    It would appear that it is already too late. Those “worst, stupidest impulses” are spiraling out of control.

    Back to 1987: Landsberg continued:

    [Gore’s] point of departure is parental alarm: her personal moment of truth dawned the day she brought home a Prince record for her 11-year-old daughter and together they heard the lyrics about a girl masturbating in a hotel lobby. From records, videos and print interviews with rock stars, Gore amassed a small mountain of examples: “Sick of chicks they’re all bitches” (Accept); “We were [f**king] her with this wine bottle” (Motley Crue); “[F**k] Like a Beast” (W.A.S.P., whose lead singer is pictured on the record jacket with a circular-saw codpiece); “Plunge the dagger in her breast” (Venom); “Little girls wanna be [f**ked!]” (Frankie Goes to Hollywood).

    Gore is also upset by rock advocacy of Satanism, alcohol, drugs and suicide, but she never calls for censorship. Instead, she opts [for] “more information, not less” – that is, warning stickers on record albums, industry ratings and printed lyrics so that parents know what their children are hearing. It is easy to mock her earnest exhortations to parents. She wants them to “network” with other parents to learn about, and boycott, violent concerts; she wants them to “communicate” more with their children.

    (This is the Obama kumbaya diplomatic approach for dealing with jihadists and terrorism. It doesn’t work, either.)

    Current efforts for mandatory warning labels on video games have already failed, thanks to industry lobbyists.

    Sasso reports:

    The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the major video game-makers, … has been fighting efforts in Washington to regulate violent games for years.

    The group spent about $4.4 million lobbying Congress in 2011, according to disclosure reports.

    In the most recent quarter, the group said it advocated “on behalf of First Amendment rights in relation to media regulation” and against “video game sale content regulation.”

    It lobbied against the Violence in Video Games Labeling Act — a bill sponsored by Reps. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.) that would require warning labels on video games similar to the warnings on cigarette packs. The bill never received a vote in committee.

    The Entertainment Software Rating Board, which was established by ESA, assigns ratings to video games to help parents decide which are appropriate for children.

    Games rated “M,” for example, are considered suitable only for ages 17 and older and might contain “intense violence” or “blood and gore.” It’s up to retailers to decide whether to sell those titles to minors.

    Because the ratings system is entirely voluntary, some lawmakers say it is not enough to protect children from the harmful effects of virtual violence.

    It is highly unlikely that warning labels will change societal attitudes towards video game violence or the need for individual responsibility. No such effort would have prohibited the horrible slaughter of innocent children in Connecticut last week. If it were only that simple.


    “While the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last week has sparked debates over gun control and mental-health services, lawmakers are also calling attention to the influence of violent movies, TV shows and video games.”


    This has been a pet peeve of mine. Children grow up around this violence and use what they see in visual stimulation as their learned behavior. Babies aren’t born violent. They aren’t born racists and most of all they’re not born to hate! Obama has created an environment fueling the flames of racism when criticism is aimed his way. He and his team fall back on the racist meme. Which imo.. is un-American and a cowardly, cop-out.

    Stopping violence begins at the White House in Obama’s own back yard. Then we have a chance taking the guns out of the hands of the troubled and mentally disturbed. Had Obama been promoting a ‘Love your brother’ and ‘Helping your Neighbor’ meme for the last four years, we might not be dealing with the destructive environment he’s created within our country.

  18. December 20, 2012 11:01 am

    wyntre permalink
    December 20, 2012 9:03 am

    Basil, I don’t think that article is completely reflective of Jan’s opinion. The article speaks for itself and what is being reported back to us as a narrative of the report submitted to the commission. I think she believes as we do. Benghazi, needs to be cleared up once and for all and most definitely, Hillary needs testify.

    And what I said in an earlier post needs an answer.


    Because if Help had arrived as we now know was doable and within reach, there is a fairly good chance the 4 Americans would still be ALIVE and the tone and merit of this conversation wouldn’t be at the forefront.

  19. December 20, 2012 12:08 pm


    A crazed bloodthirsty hyena killed 26 lambs. Grief stricken sheep blame the sheepdogs. “Their teeth are dangerous” the sheep bleat.

    Meanwhile, the pack of wolves who run the forest are salivating. Pretty soon the sheep will succeed in their pursuit of leaving the sheepdogs toothless.

    And then, the entire flock will be theirs for the slaughter.

  20. December 20, 2012 12:14 pm

  21. connie rodebaugh permalink
    December 21, 2012 3:22 am

    Well how unusual is it for Hillary to have fallen
    twice in four years injuring herself badly both
    times? Is she a clucks or what? Something
    is fishy here! O’Reilly incinuating she had too
    much to drink is horrid… she gets NO respect!

  22. December 21, 2012 3:04 pm

    Hi Connie-

    Happy Holidays to you and your family!

    I will be posting something from Sarah Palin in the next post that we all need to read.

    She is tuned in to the mood of people who are feeling pretty disparaged by the actions of our government and the abysmal performance of both political parties play acting at finding solutions to the so called fiscal cliff. Sarah’s perspective gives rise to what we as Americans have always believed. As Americans, WE NEVER GIVE UP. WE NEVER QUIT FIGHTING for what we know is Right because this is WHO WE ARE and what it means to be an AMERICAN!

  23. December 21, 2012 3:11 pm

    SARAH PALIN on Facebook:


    “May this Christmas season give you a glimpse of the faith to which millions cling to, and are willing to live and die for. As you watch this video, even if you’ve never prayed before, you can ask God for revelation to what occurred 2000 years ago, what it means for today, and why we celebrate the babe born in that Bethlehem manger over 2000 years ago. And I offer this not because I have all the answers, but because many ask me from where does my hope come? How do I hang on? What do I cling to? Here is a glimpse of the foundation of my faith. May you be shown through this short clip and song that the unanswered questions, the horrible suffering, and the sacrifice of One birthed opportunity for new life and real HOPE for all of us today.”

    “Friends, please watch this,

    and please don’t lose hope. We mustn’t lose hope! Look up! And put your time and effort in working hard for your family and loved ones around you. Don’t wait for a fallen world’s politicians and pundits to do it for you. You can have within yourself the ability and opportunity to help make America strong again, and her people joyful again.”

    – Sarah Palin

  24. December 21, 2012 3:31 pm

    Admin on His44 posted this- which is as I believe as well and bears reposting:

    Obama has everyone focused on Hillary when the Buck Stops with him.

    December 20th, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    We want answers. Hirsh has some good things here:

    “Where’s Obama in the Benghazi Report?

    In a replay of Abu Ghraib, the government excuses itself at the highest levels. [snip]

    What was lacking in the report, however, was any sense of who was responsible farther up the chain. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Accountability Review Board—chaired by retired Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and vice chaired by another national-security heavyweight, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen—detailed a broad failure of U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers to fully understand the growing Islamist threat in Libya, but without naming the names of those who were responsible for that failure. As the report put it, using the passive tense, “There was little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests.”

    Even more damning, in its absence, was the report’s failure to step back and question whether the Obama administration, at its highest levels (starting with the president), created the conditions for Benghazi by overstating the decimation of al-Qaida and playing down the significance of the extremist elements, possibly al-Qaida-linked, that have reemerged in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in Libya and elsewhere. Unless this reckoning is made, it is easy to imagine a similar disaster happening in post-Assad Syria, or elsewhere in the region. This has been a chief Republican talking point against Obama since the Benghazi attacks occurred on Sept. 11.

    A disturbing subtext of the report is the broader failure of the U.S. intelligence community to catch up ideologically with extremist threats, even as the CIA and FBI have burrowed deeply into Islamist networks at home and abroad. [snip]

    But, in a worrisome replay of the intelligence community’s cluelessness before 9/11, the report supplies further evidence that U.S. intelligence has largely failed to anticipate how new al-Qaida-style cells have been incubating in the extremist groups enfranchised by the Arab Spring abroad. Nor has the Obama administration reckoned with the ideological backlash caused by the indiscriminate use of drone strikes.

    The Pickering-Mullen report was also reminiscent of the early reports on the Abu Ghraib interrogation and detention scandal of nearly a decade ago. Even as President George W. Bush continued to blame the scandal on “a few American troops who dishonored our country,” it only gradually came to light that the practices at Abu Ghraib stemmed from a series of decisions made at the highest levels, including the president himself. And much as the State Department did here, the Pentagon sought to investigate itself over Abu Ghraib, carefully limiting in rank those it questioned at first.

    Thus, the Pickering-Mullen report confined its findings to the failures at “senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department,” Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, concluding that “certain senior State Department officials” in these bureaus “demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi.” Even so, the task force “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”

    The report also did not explain why U.S. intelligence was, in general, not keeping up, even though it found that “fundamentalist influence with Salafi and al-Qaida connections was also growing [in Libya], including notably in the eastern region…. At the time of the September attacks, Benghazi remained a lawless town nominally controlled by the Supreme Security Council (SSC)—a coalition of militia elements loosely cobbled into a single force to provide interim security—but in reality run by a diverse group of local Islamist militias.”

    In another unsettling reminder of how laggard U.S. intelligence has remained in the 11 years since 9/11, the report drew parallels between the failure in Benghazi and what happened after terrorists attacked U.S. facilities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1999. [snip]

    Shot through the report are other reminders of incompetence at the highest levels: the State Department’s failure to “issue a worldwide caution cable to posts related to the [9/11] anniversary; and a failure “to link formally the many anti-Western incidents in Benghazi, the general declarations of threat in U.S. assessments and a proliferation of violence-prone and little understood militias, the lack of any central authority, and a general perception of a deteriorating security environment to any more specific and timely analysis of the threat to U.S. government facilities,” as the report puts it.

    The report also notes “a tendency on the part of policy, security, and other U.S. government officials to … overlook the usefulness of taking a hard look at accumulated, sometimes circumstantial information, and instead to fail to appreciate threats and understand trends, particularly based on increased violence and the targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi.” The report said board members “were struck by the lack of discussion focused specifically on Benghazi.” It also said that “known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests.”

    All of which raises the question: Where do these gaps begin? The answer is: at the highest levels, of course. A real reckoning of Benghazi will have to await further reports.”

    This is the key sentence: the Pickering-Mullen report confined its findings to the failures at “senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department”.

    What is needed, what the Republicans in the House should do, is investigate the totality of the failures. It’s not enough to look at the failures in the State Department especially as the Benghazi facility was also an intelligence facility. The Pickering-Mullen report should be the starting point of the investigation not the end.

  25. December 21, 2012 3:47 pm

    Admin also posted this assessment of Hillary testifying before Congress:

    December 20th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    “Hillary does not profit from a delay in the hearings. If anything now would be a perfect time to testify if you want to sweep things under the rug. With Christmas and the holidays a few days away along with the shootings in Connecticut, testimony now is the best time to weasel out of the Behghazi fiasco while everyone has their attention on shopping or other matters (think Friday night news dumps). Hillary knows that the questions about Benghazi have to be answered or she will be tarnished and a target. We want those questions asked and we want answers. Greta makes sense here:

    by Greta Van Susteren

    I believe that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suffering from a concussion. She has never shied away from a fight (assuming the testimony would even amount to that), she has never declined to testify before in her decades of public service … and very significantly she has agreed to testify in January so they will hear from her.

    If the Republicans wanted to hear from her earlier, why didn’t they just call her to testify earlier? and if she had said no, subpoena her? It is simple to do. The Republicans are in the Majority in the House of Representatives and had the power and could have summoned her / subpoenaed her to testify if they had wanted to.

    Frankly, I do want to hear what she says about Benghazi — she is important to hear from on this serious matter – but I want to hear from her when she is in good health. There are many, many unanswered and very serious questions in my mind, and as the Secretary of State, it is her job to answer them. I would have liked to have had her testify weeks ago and answered the questions — but now that she is sick — the right thing to do is to wait until she is better.

    I don’t agree with being snarky about someone’s health.

    The best time for Obama opponents to highlight Benghazi is early next year after the fiscal cliff and other distractions are out of the way.

  26. December 22, 2012 12:24 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: