I must admit, there are many questions that need to be answered.
Just like with JFK and 9/11. When there are too many inconsistencies that aren't explained... the truth is out there somewhere.
Just start googleing folks... we've been lied to again. That's my view at this point in time.
"When there are too many inconsistencies that aren't explained... the truth is out there somewhere. "
What people don't get about Sandy Hook is what Asperger's is. It is an irrationally liking of something and absolute focus on that one thing.
For some kids, it could be fire. For Adam Lanza, I think it is safe to say that it was shooting guns. Having a child with recovered autism, you find early on what thing it is they like to do and stick to it as it is calming to the child.
I don't think then that the mother was paranoid or anything of the sort. I think she just bought guns to keep her kid happy because shooting guns is what he liked to do.
So what would set him off? Well, it is pretty simple in my mind. He was told he couldn't play with his guns. Apparently, the mother has multiple sclerosis, a condition that typically waxes and wanes. Maybe she had an exacerbation and couldn't play anymore, or maybe his mother had an exacerbation and he was mad at the world, mercy killed her, and then went on a rampage. People with MS who have an exacerbation can go from being just fine to being completely unable to walk.
When the Congressman in Arizona got shot to me the real tragedy is that a $4 a month script for schizophrenia is all that was needed to prevent that tragedy. This one is more complex. People with Asperger's do have an irrationally liking for one thing... but they are typically rational. They tend to be thinkers not feelers and maybe this young man was overcome with emotions or maybe not. Maybe there was a rational reason to do what he did. We won't know.
I think people always blame the tools and call the instigator crazy, and you can say what you want about Timothy McVeigh but he WAS rational. I will include some quotes on the next post.
Here are quotes from McVeigh:
"The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) — mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that’s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims this was done for deterrent purposes during its “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Why, then, it is invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) with respect to Iraq’s (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We’ve all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen those pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other “regional conflicts” that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of “weapons of mass destruction.”
Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones — Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks or months to die).
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction."
Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet, when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes “a shield.” Think about it.
(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb —saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)
When considering morality and “mens rea” [criminal intent], in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? ...
I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed “The Spirit of Oklahoma.” This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.
Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.
These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City ...
McVeigh included photocopies of a famous Vietnam War-era picture showing terrified children fleeing napalm bombs, and of nuclear devastation in Japan. He said in a preface that the essay was intended to “provoke thought — and was not written with malevolent intent.”
McVeigh's whole reason for the OKC attack was what the ATF, FBI, and Janet Reno had done at Waco.
"On April 19 she ordered the F.B.I. to finish up what the A.T.F. had begun. In defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act (a basic bulwark of our fragile liberties that forbids the use of the military against civilians), tanks of the Texas National Guard and the army’s Joint Task Force Six attacked the compound with a gas deadly to children and not too healthy for adults while ramming holes in the building."
And so we have the executive branch acting illegally and no one, no one outside of Timothy McVeigh, held the government accountable for its illegal activity.
Again, here is a McVeigh quote, "You can't handle the truth! Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?"
And he didn't use guns.
The media to the rescue and playing a big role also.
No wonder people are tuning away from CNN et al.
They've lost all credibility in terms of objectively reporting the news---always an agenda it seems.
Benghazi was also a joke as there have been so many thrown under that bus that there ain't no way to steer and avoid bodies now.
Glad you mentioned Benghazi
The Dems are fortunate that one headline keeps replacing focus on the last. I'm still interested in Fast and Furious.... but everybody has forgot the firearms scandal. The media only focuses on what ti wants to.
OK... back to Benghazi. Hillary couldn't testify on the matter because she was in Austrailia wine tasting. Now that she has returned, she can't testify because she is suffering from a concussion.... what a sham. The Clintons do what they want.