Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game

The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game
Brandon Smith
The moral relativism of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy has been draining the heart and soul of America for decades. Many of us in the Liberty Movement understand that it is nothing new, and have come to expect the abusive and emaciated logic it entails from time to time.

However, over the course of the past year it has become apparent to me that the talking points and propaganda that drive the hypocritical worldview are being utilized on an even grander scale than ever before. This fact struck me quite sharply while attending a local GOP Lincoln/Reagan dinner event while I was attempting to gauge the overall danger our country would be facing from potential RINO (Republican In Name Only) sellouts as well as what our hopes were for a possible political solution at the local and state level. The “conservative” rally was, to say the least, disappointing.

One thing that stood out plainly at this event, though, was that there was an overall template; an action plan, a message that had been pre-engineered. Someone had sent out a memo, or an email, or a guide, or perhaps beamed talking points directly into the cyborg brains of these political hacks. Their rhetoric was repetitive and uniform and dry like elbow skin. The demand was clearly stated; regardless of who won the Republican Primaries, no matter how unprincipled, how unconstitutional, how despicable, it was our “duty” as conservatives to back them through the national elections. Obama and the Democrats had to be defeated at all costs…

Now, one of the first tenets or rules that a person learns when delving into the Liberty Movement is that there is no such thing as political parties in America today. There are no conflicting interests in Washington D.C. There is no “grand battle” between left and right for the minds of the masses. It is a sham. A con. A fantasy. A false paradigm.

In reality, the leaderships of both fraudulent parties support essentially the same methodology, and that methodology could be summarized thus: Centralize everything, globalize everything, control everything, grow government power, reduce the effectiveness of the citizenry, turn the public against each other, rob them while they’re distracted. If an American does not understand this dynamic and how it is used to dominate the ebb and flow of our culture, then that American knows nothing. He is lost…

Sadly, even those of us who should very well know better than to fall into the false left/right paradigm trap do so on occasion.

Lesser Of Two Evils? There’s No Such Thing…

First of all, asserting that there is such a thing as a “lesser of two evils” is an act of naivety. It relies on a very dangerous assumption; that one can somehow quantify which candidate is going to hurt the country less. I’ve even read essays by people who pretend they can mathematically delineate the “more evil” of the evils! Not surprisingly, their “logic” invariably leads them to proclaim the lesser evil to be the candidate of the party they happen to belong to. Ignorant Republicans always see the Democrat as the greater evil, while ignorant Democrats always see the Republican as the ultimate monster.

Here’s some math for you: there are two candidates for President of the United States, one is a cannibalistic serial killer who plans to murder 20 more people with his own hands while in office. The other is a cannibalistic serial killer who only plans to kill 19 innocents personally. Which candidate do you support?

The correct answer is NEITHER.

Unless you are a fan of murder, there is no inherent difference between these two demonic bureaucrats. They both stand in opposition to the guiding principles of inborn conscience, as well as the protections provided by the laws of free people. The fact that one man will do slightly less damage during his reign is irrelevant. Is a choice between Stalin and Hitler, for instance, really a choice at all? Which one is the "lesser evil" in this equation?

Some may argue that this comparison is a bit over the top. I beg to differ. Presidents have the power not only to maim and kill en mass, but they also have the power to dismantle the laws which protect our civil liberties.

A refusal to vote, or a vote for a third party, is not a vote for sham democrate , or a vote for sham republican, but a vote against the charade.

There is no such thing as a “lesser evil”. Either a candidate follows the path of truth and honor, or he does not. If he does, he deserves our support. If he does not, or if both candidates are criminals, then they both must be tossed to the wayside. Just because the system has deliberately limited our choices does not mean we are required to participate in the flim-flam.

Participation Is A Duty?

I have also heard the argument that by refusing to participate within the system, and by refusing to choose a specimen from the carnival of horrors we are presented every election cycle, we are doing more harm to America than good. This is the most prevalent falsehood of our era.

The bottom line is, Americans have been dancing in the lesser of two evils pageantry for generations and our Constitutional shield has only been further degraded and destroyed in that time. I defy anyone to show how choosing Obama over McCain, or Bush over Gore, or Clinton over Bush Sr. has helped this country or its people. Where are these illusory advantages and benefits of participation? Where has our country gone while the public fettered away years trying to decide which ghoul to hand over the scepter of empire to? Or, the ultimate question; what specifically have they achieved? Have they gained anything? Has any minutia of our lives been made better by following the “lesser of two evils theory”? Only a fool would claim yes…

One might argue that a non-vote is the same as putting all bad candidates on the same footing, and that this would be “wrong”. I disagree. In an election in which all candidates share the same disparaging policies, they are ALREADY on the same footing. We simply refuse to give the farce legitimacy by casting our vote for any one of them.

In the game of chess, the primary goal is to diminish your opponent’s options. To force him into a corner where, no matter which choice he makes, he loses. Chess, however, is not life. In life, intelligent and creative individuals have the ability to walk away from the board completely and implement their own solutions. The more we continue to participate in the rigged game, and the more we continue to view the future as a series of self contained boundaries administered by the establishment instead of a wide open frontier in which all is possible, the more we will lose, until there is nothing left.

Only Cowards Compromise In The Face Of Evil

Good does not compromise with evil. As stated above, there is nothing to be gained by it. I find that the people most prone to suggesting or demanding compromise with oligarchs and tyrants are usually cowards who have never faced down any legitimate struggle in their lives with any passion. But, how do they sell this stunted philosophy to others? The illusion here is one of “reason” or “objectivity”.

Fearful men often use the guise of objectivity (even if they are not) to avoid confrontation, especially confrontation with a supposed authority figure or government. Strangely, their powers of reason and deduction invariably seem to lead them to subservience to the establishment structure. Compromise, for them, is a way to protect their flailing egos by playing the role of the “even handed citizen” while at the same time crawling towards servitude.

The argument to this position would, of course, be that many in the Liberty Movement compromise with evil everyday. That we follow laws we disagree with and that we find reprehensible, and that this makes us somehow “hypocritical”. I would say that this is a very narrow and disingenuous view.

Free minded people do not “follow” reprehensible laws so much as tolerate them while working to dismantle them (“following” infers acceptance). Being honorable and generally of good will, we look for peaceful avenues of redress and change. But, if those avenues are closed to us, and if the injustices expand, the free minded become freedom fighters. Dissent and even revolution are inevitable in the face of tyranny. It is an undeniable feature of human nature.

What I find most interesting though is the conundrum that this conflict of interest creates for the skeptical establishment slave. If the Liberty Movement tolerates bad law while searching for a peaceful path towards change, they call us hypocritical. If the Liberty Movement abandons tolerance and brings force to bear against tyranny and its abuse of the law, they call us “fringe extremists”.

Apparently, the only way we can be correct in the eyes of self proclaimed objectivists is if we bow to the constraints of the system, sit back, keep our mouths shut, and enjoy the bread and circuses.
(The above article will make you think bubba, bubba is the average obama suporter or average middle of the road democrate or republican voter. The article is correct evil is evil including the lessor of 2 evils. The avergae voter thinks in terms of the lessor of 2 evils.

The 2 party system knows this. The 2 party system uses this in elections. Be aware you are not required to vote for anyone especially if they are the "lessor of 2 evils".)
Story Reports

Sunday, May 18, 2014

JFK: The Smoking Gun (This movie is a must watch.)

Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY)

Author Discusses “JFK: The Smoking Gun”

A veteran police detective, Colin McLaren in Melbourne Australia believes that after four years of continuous research and writing, he has uncovered just how President John F. Kennedy was killed.

Netflix streaming
Veteran Police Detective Colin McLaren spent four years on the forensic cold case investigation of JFK's assassination. What he had, and other investigators did not, was modern technology and access to all the evidence, facts and eye-witness testimony.

Seventy-five percent of the American people still refuse to believe the official story of President John F. Kennedy’s death. They do not think he was killed by a lone gunman but by a mysterious cabal that somehow conspired to have him killed. How can this be? How can a crime this famous, witnessed and investigated by so many, remain a mystery? This is what veteran Australian police detective Colin McLaren is determined to find out.

JFK: The Smoking Gun follows the forensic cold-case investigation McLaren conducted over four painstaking years, taking us back to that tragic day in Dallas at Dealey Plaza where the shooting took place, to Parkland Hospital where the president was pronounced dead, to the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was conducted and to the conclusions of the Warren Commission that have remained controversial to this day.

Driven by a seasoned police detective who, thanks to modern technology, finally had access to all the facts and to witness testimony, the documentary film uses logic, reason and time-tested investigative techniques to solve a crime that is every bit as shocking and incredible today as it was when it first happened 50 years ago. Colin McLaren believes he has found “the smoking gun” that killed JFK. Once you’ve seen this documentary film, he’s confident you will believe it, too.
Jessica Berardino
PITTSBURGH (NewsRadio 1020 KDKA) – A veteran police detective in Melbourne, Australia believes that after four years of continuous research and writing, he has uncovered just how President John F. Kennedy was killed.

Colin McLaren used the research from another author to inspire his ongoing investigation in to the truth.

McLaren built his book, “JFK: The Smoking Gun,” around the research previously done by ballistics expert, Howard Donahue.

Donahue spent 20 years studying the JFK assassination and his work is included in author Bonar Menninger’s book, “Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK.

His fascination started when he was on vacation many years ago and came across Menninger’s book. Then for the next 15 years his interest was peaked and he wanted to know more about the information that Donahue and Menninger had presented.

McLaren started his research in January of 2009. His work is a confirmation of Donahue’s theory and a continuation of Menninger’s research.

To summarize their theory of the accident, a Secret Service agent accidentally fired that fatal shot. There were three rounds, but the third came from a different place causing President John F. Kennedy’s head to move forward, not behind.

There were two guns, three bullets and two shooters. One was using a full metal jacket bullet that was fired twice at the president, then a hollow-point bullet fired from a rifle to kill him.

So the story goes, a Secret Service agent in the car behind the president’s was standing on an unstable vehicle and stumbled over, accidentally pulling the trigger and firing at the president.

“This was clearly a horrific accident with a fool-hearted, poor assassination attempt by Lee Harvey Oswald,” said McLaren.

“If you look at the science of it all it has to be from behind and it has to be a straight level and it has to be from somebody with a .223 or hollow-point round, that’s a rifle round,” said McLaren. “And who on that day was armed with a round or at least a rifle firing a hollow-point, the question is easy to answer, it’s the Secret Service detail in the car behind.”

He examined the characters of the Secret Service men who later admitted to drinking alcohol and entertaining strippers the night before. McLaren feels that these men were hung over, with clouded minds while wearing impaired dark sunglasses.

Although, he believes the agent who accidentally fired his gun was a new member to the team and was strictly assigned as the driver not a field agent.

Witnesses who were there say that they saw the men in the second car falter and stumble in the chaos and panic. This was an event that could never be replicated and is a “once in history” moment.
The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm/.223-caliber, magazine-fed, air cooled rifle with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It has been produced in many different versions, including numerous semi-automatic and selective fire variants. It is manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials.

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle like the AR-10 to the rear of the receiver), the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16 rifle.

Colt then started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian sales in 1963 and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then. Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

(The book and film refer to the rifle the secret service used as an AR15. The secret service agent did use an AR15 that was an automatic AR15, IE a machine gun. The same name AR15 name is now used to represent a civilian SEMI AUTOMATIC rifle, it only fires one bullet per trigger pull! Don't think the secret service agent used anything other than an automatic rifle. Its confusing because Colt continued to use the name AR15 which in the beginning was the name used for the weapons that were automatic built for the military but now the AR15 is term is used in relation to civilian rifles that are SEMI AUTOMATIC ONLY! This means also when the secret service agent pulled the trigger it fired more than one time. It fired serveral times at the minimum. One of these bullets hit Kennedy. It sounds like an accident but accident or not we now know that yes the government did kill Kennedy either by accident or on purpose.) Story Reports

You have to realize that this happened in 1963, not in 2013. People were not so jaded with respect to the government. Also, the government treated the masses as if they were stupid sheep who would believe anything and for the most part, they did. To answer the question as to why the parties involved wouldn't have just admitted the truth, understanding the mindsets of the day are important. ~ I was 9 years old when Kennedy was shot and I don't think I ever believed the results of the Warren Commission. By the same token, I've never seen or heard anything that so clearly explained what might have happened as this documentary. I'd never before heard of Donahue's research or his book or the matter may well have been put to rest for me many years ago. ~ I was never looking to exonerate Oswald, the Secret Service, or anyone else. All I've ever wanted was to understand the truth of what happened that November day in 1963. I think I finally do. ~ This film is definitely worth watching. ~

This documentary closely follows the book, Mortal Error, which I read back in the early 90's. The book was the first realistic explanation for the Kennedy assassination I'd heard, and I'd read probably hundreds of explanations and theories as to who, what, when, where, etc. Colin's investigation takes a step-by-step look into not only what happened to Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas, but into the mind and workings of a dedicated investigative professional who will not stop til the questions are answered. Definitely worth the watch-- the film is engaging, precise, well-researched and well put-together. Highly recommended.

Mystery solved! Skeptical? Initially, I was too. Watch this Documentary, and decide for yourself. Fifty plus years later, finally all the jigsaw puzzle pieces perfectly fit!!! A MUST SEE... if you want the truth, if you love history, and if you want SOLID PROOF of what really happened.
(I watched this film on nexflix last night. I was impressed with the details of the investigator. They found 3 shells next to where oswald fired a gun. One one them was used as a "plug" for the gun. That could mean he fired only 2 shots. That makes sense to me.The first shot hit the pavement. The next shot cut through Kennedy's throat. The third shot came from a secret service agent, just behind Kennedy's, car that had picked up an AR15 took the safety off, fell backward in the car and accidently pulled the trigger as the car sped off.

The secret service altered the evidence from the time of the autopsy to coverup the facts. The warren commission did a bad investigation working with the secret service to cover up the fact that oswald was not the only shooter.

Many people smelled gun power that day and it was not coming from a sixth floor window. It was at ground level. That means a gun was fired near Kennedy.

How would it look for the US to admit that Kennedy was killed by a secret service agent along with oswald?

So I do think the government covered up the facts and altered the facts. This book and movie proves that our corrupt government did in fact kill Kennedy.)
Story Reports