The Brave Journo’s who fought against the take over of the British Media in the early 80’s lost the battle but soon will be back to win the war. Those who call themselves Journalist and work for the Elite’s will soon be exposed as traitors of Truth As “They” could say in Doctor Who ‘EXPOSE’ ‘EXPOSE’

nothing they say matters anymore. not only does it backfire but the gig is up. americans were willing to be complicit in their own execution, but only up to the point that it was anaesthetically comfortable. now that the money rug is being pulled out from under people, americans are waking up faster than i could ever have dreamed. with the comfort of perpetual trinkets removed the slumbering american giant is waking up with one heck of a hangover.

If Ron Paul is assassinated, I belive that this quote might come true.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” — John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

@Lars

“The “journalists” who take marching order from the elites and their politician puppets are equally responsible for the crimes committed against the people and will be HELD responsible equally.”

That bears repeating. I agree completely. In fact I think we should hold the media even more responsible since we expected better of them. THEY were our only hope of avoiding the crap we are now in.

Hey Gail; Calling Shazar an American-Hater was a pretty cheap shot; what’s up?

All it takes, to see the true evil of the minority elites, is to imagine what you yourself would want if you already had all money and worldly possessions. #1 you would want longer life. #2 you would want better life. #3 you would need control to attain those two.

David Rockefeller (CFR founder), page 405 of his 2002 book Memoirs: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” ISBN-13: 978-0812969733 (see “Georgia Guidestones”, via wikipedia)

Bush, Hannity, Rockefeller, and the rest of the NWO scum are lairs an cheats and complicit in all the madness, but THEY ARE NOT MURDERERS.
—pete—

Actually Pete if you did a little research you would find that George W Bush was the primary suspect in the murder of 17 people in Brownsville Texas back in the 80’s when daddy Bush was VP. Guess who got that investigation snuffed out. And by the way those 17 people were skinned alive. So yes George W Bush is a murderer. Perhaps Pete you should do a little research so you know what the F$#k your talking about. Because right now you just look like an ignorant douchebag!

How did these People(Elitist, come to be?)That’s the questions you all should be asking yourselves!
They are a Product of Society that is allowed to prevail.
How are they allowed to Prevail over Us?
Because We except a lower standard and Principle
People say, many! ” If there was a God. “How could He allow the Tradgedies of late, to befall Our Nation”

He(God) isn’t allowing anything. He’s only giving to this Nation what it wants. A Nation without Him or His Guidance.
How many times do You as an American, turn a Blind eye to Injustice everyday in this Country, and except it?
The Longer You allow it, (legalised political authoritarianism, without due process), the worse it will become.
We Cannot protect our own rights if we allow other legal americans rights to be stripped away from them.
This Country is in Big trouble. More so, Than many realise.

Pete: “Well, technically, no. Legally the hit man and his client may be equally responsible for a murder, but morally it is the hit man that is culpable. There is an important difference IN KIND between someone who pulls the trigger and someone who finances it. Please don’t equate the law with ethics, or legal responsibility with moral responsibility.”

Well, technically, yes. The monkey-suited scumbag forms the intent to kill, actively manipulates the serf into doing his bidding, and as a result, the murder occurs. The distinction toward which you seem to be groping is causal priority; the monkeysuited scumbag acts first, and the serf’s (resulting) actions are intermediate between the scumbag’s active intent and the demise of the victim. Given the fact that the elite scumbag has formed an evil intention and acted on it with every expectation that it will result in the fulfillment of his intent, he’s guilty. The chain of causation which he intentionally initiated is coherent, resulting in the realization of the original intent. It hardly takes a genius to understand this, does it?

Pete: “I’m afraid you misunderstand the nature of moral responsibility. Had the elite committed the murder and then payed the serf to take responsibility, then your statement is correct. However, in our case, the elite is manipulating the serf into committing the crime. Morally, the serf is responsible for his actions, regardless of his mis-perceptions on account of the manipulative elite. Every human being is morally responsible for his or her actions. Our will is inalienable.”

I’ll agree that somebody “misunderstands the nature of moral responsibility”, but that would evidently be you. I’ll also agree with you that everybody is responsible for his own actions, but this obviously includes manipulators who consciously use others as their instruments of evil (just as an executioner manipulates a weapon and thus uses it as his own instrument of evil). That the chain of causality includes a variable juncture between the actions of the monkeysuited scumbag and the death of his victim - i.e., a putative act of free will on the part of the executioner - is not enough to exonerate the scumbag. This is because the scumbag’s manipulative actions generally incorporate some measure of coercion and deception, thus interfering in a very decisive way with the “free will” of the executioner.

Again, the law - which always purports to be fundamentally ethical, since it would otherwise lack any measure of justification - is quite clear on such matters.

We seem to agree regarding the culpability of elite dirtbags who issue orders to kill. However, when you insist on a “difference in kind” between the manipulative actions of such a person and the action of pulling the trigger, this amounts to hairsplitting.

If you tell me that the guy across the street is armed and intends to kill me within a minute or two (thus leaving me no time to summon a cop), but you’re consciously lying and are in fact trying to get me to shoot him for you, then if I do it, you’re even more guilty than I am. After all, I’m in fear of my life and merely acting in what I honestly believe is self-defense. On the other hand, if you sincerely believe that I have an urgent need to defend myself, then you’re innocent, and may in fact be a good samaritan. It all depends on our respective motives and knowledge states, which play a very important part in ethical judgments.

You’re right about soldiers being responsible for their actions even under orders. Sadly, they sign away their rights to make moral judgments when they enlist, provided that they do so voluntarily and in full knowledge of the “job requirements”, one of which is to bear arms, and to shoot them on command, in the defense of their country. Effective military organization is always hierarchical, requiring that decisions on when and how to defend the country be made by higher-ups. This immediately puts the trigger-pullers in the position of having to assume that those above them in the hierarchy are well-intentioned and always correct in making such decisions.

Some people know better than to assume this; some do not. The problem, of course, is that the military command structure fails to support this assumption when it fails to tell its soldiers the truth and uses them for purposes other than national self-defense. When commanders knowingly make a lie out of this critical assumption, they share responsibility for whatever their soldiers do. In fact, they may bear more responsibility than the soldiers themselves, especially for crimes less obvious than shooting down mothers and children.

Lastly, laws are properly decided by applications of ethical reasoning. On the other hand, when this is not the case, the situation is unethical by definition; laws are unjustifiable, i.e., unjust. In other words, it is ethical when laws and ethics are in harmony, but unethical when they are not. This couples ethics and the law in such a way that the legislators and higher-ranking enforcers of unjust laws are always culpable.

There’s no way out. Elite scumbags are responsible for their own evil intentions and manipulations in every possible case. That’s just the way it is, and as I’m sure you’ll agree, it is important that the public, and the elites themselves, understand this very important application of ethical reasoning.