Victim?

Don't get me wrong, the suspect who was shot was definitely sleazy. He was with a 16 year old girl.

But he was shot dead. That's not the punishment for kidnapping. Was this girl REALLY kidnapped? Why did she not try to get away when in public? Why did her kidnapper feel comfortable bringing his "kidnapping" victim into a VERY public place? She could ask to go to the bathroom and then just run away crying for help!!  Was he REALLY that stupid.

And I'm sorry, but I just don't think the guy had enough time to "mentally abuse her" so that she was too scared to run away. Further, she was not, according to what I have read, "bruised, battered, trembling," or anything of the sort that would suggest she was being abused and held against her will.

So far as I can tell, she merely got into an internet-based relationship with an older man and went to meet him. She seems to be just a 16 year old girl who wanted some attention. WE NEED HARD EVIDENCE for more than that!

Further, a HIGHLY-ARMED military-style SWAT team surrounded and shot the guy.

AHEM; that's pretty heavy-handed. Was he armed? Was there a shootout!?!?! NO ONE KNOWS! The "authorities" have said nothing!

AND NO ONE IS ASKING ANY QUESTIONS BUT THE MAN IN THE VIDEO BELOW.

When questions are not being asked, state-sponsored murder may be the result.

A conspiracy "theory" is an idea with little basis in fact. Its just all conjecture based on a highly questionable premise.

The argument about Obama hoarding ammo isn't an argument at all! The Dept. of "Homeland Security," (who should BLUSH given how gestapo-like that name sounds) - and not the FBI, CIA, or any Dept. of Defense agency - is buying 1.6 BILLION with a 'B' rounds of ammunition. BULLETS.

THEY HAVE NEVER BOUGHT AN AMOUNT EVEN 1/10 OF THAT NUMBER.

These are not petunias they are buying, kids. THEY ARE BULLETS. BULLETS GO IN GUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING SHOT OUT OF GUNS, usually at targets or else at people.

Sooooo...... anyone who asks WHY this agency with a name reminiscent of the Stazi in East Germany, is suddenly buying billions of rounds of ammo is suddenly a "conspiracy theorist?"

No.

At a bare minimum, EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN should demand an immediate Congressional investigation into this unwarranted expenditure. We have a Federal budget crisis going on and the DHS is blowing over 1 Billion dollars on ammo!?!?!?!

W-H-Y!?!?!?

And the press is printing "articles" like the one below, which is an article about the "conspiracy" theory ITSELF causing "real trouble" (as opposed to the fake kind of trouble?).

People asking questions are the story here, according to the author. Um, ok. GEE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE ASKING THE GOV'T THE SAME QUESTIONS, MS. WYLER!?!?!?!?

Governments are supposed to represent their citizens. The government agency fighting no wars is going to do WHAT on behalf of its citizens with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?!?!?!?

The Conspiracy Theory About Obama Hoarding Ammo Is Causing Real Trouble

By Grace Wyler

The Infowars folks aren't taking government ammo hoarding lightly.

Last month, conservative blogger Matt Drudge tweeted that he predicts 2013 will be the "year of Alex Jones," the conspiracy theorist extraordinaire who most recently made headlines by suggesting that the Boston Marathon bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FBI.

Drudge has a point. As the leading purveyor of New World Order conspiracies, Jones has a growing Internet following of casual fearmongers who see nefarious government intrigue in the most mundane bureaucratic chores (e.g. water fluoridation), and believe it's only a matter of time before we are all living in FEMA concentration camps.

To the average person, this looks like lunacy. But is it all just conspiratorial blather? Or is there any truth to what Alex Jones and his fanboys are selling?

Mostly, the ideas are just nuts. But the most recent conspiracy theory du jour—that the government is stockpiling ammunition for an eventual showdown with the American people—has been surprisingly resilient.

The theory first began circulating last year, when the Infowars crowd noticed that the Department of Homeland Security had put in a procurement request for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition—a surprisingly large number of bullets, even by a normal person's estimation. 

DHS has tried to quell the rumor-mongering, assuring Congress that the bullets are primarily used for training purposes. A DHS spokesman told Republican House investigators last month that the department wasn't actually planning on buying all 1.6 billion bullets, and that the ammo would be spread over 70,000 agents over five years. In aletter to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) last November, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that DHS plans to buy around $37 million worth of ammo in 2013, which, based on past year’s expenses, would amount to around 100 million rounds. She also pointed out that the department has actually marginally decreased its ammunitions purchases over the last few years.

AS BULLETS FLY OFF THE SHELVES, ALEX JONES HAS WARNED HIS AUDIENCE THAT THE AMMO SHORTAGE IS A SIGN THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GEARING UP FOR WIDESPREAD CIVIC UNREST.

Still, that does seem like a lot of ammo for a non-defense agency. In 2012, DHS purchased more than 103 million rounds of ammo, an average of about 1,500 bullets per DHS officer. According to Napolitano, DHS had over 263 million rounds of ammunition in its inventory at the end of 2012.

Coupled with a recent nationwide ammunitions shortage, the apparent government stockpiling has sent the conspiracy theory mill into overdrive. As bullets fly off the shelves, Alex Jones has warned his audience that the ammo shortage is a sign that the federal government is gearing up for widespread civic unrest, and engaging in an "arms race against the American people."

That as-yet unfounded fear is underscored by an interesting nationwide trend: A recent poll found that a full 29 percent of Americans—including 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents—believe a revolution to protect their liberties might be necessary in the next few years.

If more than a quarter of the population, and nearly half of Republicans, believes that an armed confrontation with the government is imminent—and they are buying up weapons and ammo to prepare for the struggle—then it would only be logical for the federal government, and the Department of Homeland Security in particular, to prepare for this contingency.

But is the US government and the hundreds of billions of dollars of yearly military spending really trying to incite an "arms race" with citizens? Until US citizens start equipping themselves with Predator drones and aircraft carriers, the government will always have the upper hand when it comes to the use of force.

With that in mind, the idea that Homeland Security is trying to buy up all the bullets so civilians can't have any is silly. Who cares how much ammo anti-government citizens buy when they're facing an opposition with the largest budgets on Earth? So while it is true that there are currently off-and-on ammo shortages being reported around the country, Homeland Security purchasing plans (for the future, mind you) aren't to blame. 

"Shortages have happened before but this seems to be a little more pronounced," said Mike Bazinet, a spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry lobbying group. "Ammunition manufacturers are working their facilities 24/7 to meet the demand, they are loading them up on trucks and putting them on the shelves, but they are moving very quickly once they get to retailers."

Bazinet dismissed the conspiracy theories, and said that the ammo shortage is primarily attributable to the recent increase in gun sales, a trend documented by the rise in FBI background checks for gun purchases.

“We've obviously seen the reports that the shortage is due to government stockpiling, but they are not accurate,” he said. "Government purchases are not the cause for shortages of retail product.”

But some members of Congress aren't buying it. To that end, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) recently introduced the AMMO Act, which would restrict non-defense agencies from purchasing ammo above the monthly average bought from 2000-2009, before the Obama administration took office. The law would also require the federal government to conduct a report auditing its ammunition purchase and their effect on the retail ammunition supply.

Is this going to be suburban America in five years? Well, no, but all of those bullets have to be used somewhere, right? Via the Defense Department

Inhofe, for one, has suggested that the government stockpiling is a backdoor effort by Democrats to implement gun control measures that couldn't pass the Senate.

"President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights," he said in a press release. "One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition."

In a recent interview, Lucas was a little more measured. He told me that he wasn't sure why the government needed so much ammunition, but that the perceived government stockpiling was sparking "fear" among average gun owners.

"There is a great suspicion in the countryside," Lucas said. "Part of it is that the actions of this administration have caused so much fear among people that ammunition might not be available in the future."

As a result, he added, “people are stockpiling in a way that they never have before."

MORE THAN A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION, AND NEARLY HALF OF REPUBLICANS, BELIEVES THAT AN ARMED CONFRONTATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS IMMINENT.

So far, there is no hard evidence to link the government’s ammo purchases to the rise in conspiratorial right-wing dissent. And obviously, it seems like a stretch to say that the government is in an “arms race” to deprive Americans of bullets.  

But as New World Order conspiracy theories increasingly permeate civic life, right-wing conspiracy theorists appear to be taking concrete steps to prepare for what they see as an inevitable showdown, even if those steps often amount to showing off personal arsenals on the web.

What is for certain is that government conspiracy theories are gaining traction. We're already seeing the results of this on a small scale with the sovereign citizen movement, and the Southern Poverty Law Center has recently noted an "explosive growth" of radical antigovernment groups, just to name a couple.

So regardless of whether or not the government is stockpiling ammunition to keep people from revolting, a sizeable portion of the nation thinks that's the case. And now that members of Congress appear to be on board, the sticky conspiracy theory is causing real trouble on Capitol Hill. But rest assured that for the majority of people that "believe" armed confrontation is imminent, actually rounding up a militia to carry it out is a much larger stretch.

Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-conspiracy-theory-about-obama-hoarding-ammo-is-causing-real-trouble#ixzz2bmB3xi3y
Follow us: @motherboard on Twitter | motherboardtv on Facebook

What is it with Police Killing Unarmed People?!?!!?

What the fck is this? First off, why was the child being removed from the home? Because his father smoked some weed. First off, I DO NOT approve of drug use in front of kids. WTF is that? But otherwise, the father sounded reasonably responsible and clearly loved his son whom the biased courts considered safe to put in his care. Further, if we're going to remove children from every home where a parent does a little pot, I hope you have a long list of high quality foster homes on hand. In other words, we have bigger fish to fry.

Secondly, the father "lunged at police with a pen knife."  Is that a joke?

First off, a father insults law enforcement which is planning to steal his child (legal stealing, you see). Is that shocking? No. Is it a crime? No, but I'm sure the "authorities" sought to teach that insulting pig a lesson. So the cops show up with guns (note, that is a short to medium range weapon. You can stand back a ways and still stop someone with a shot), and then panic because the man supposedly pulls a PEN KNIFE!?!?!?

Its probably a what, 2 inch blade? Please Google the term "pen knife" dear reader. And prepare to laugh. Against a FIREARM a pen knife is about as good as a wad of spit.  And if someone did in fact pull one, you'd have all the time in the world to deter him by pulling a gun. No one with a brain tries to knife someone holding a gun.

I'm especially curious because this is not the first time I've heard of a suspicious police shooting being justified by the police with "he lunged at us with a knife." How do you prove that? If the man had a pocket knife in his pants, the police could just say he "lunged at them," whether he did or not.

Further they were terrified enough to shoot him dead. Based on a supposed "lunge" with a 2 inch blade?

THE POLICE OVERREACTED. Its nearly impossible to kill someone with a 'pen knife.' Its a tiny knife not designed to assault anyone.

Picture the social services folks showing up to your house to take your child away. OVERREACTION is easy! And rather expected! My sweet little old mom would throw an outburst. If the man did come at the GUN-WEARING cops with a gun, why didn't they just wound him? Hey, policeman, EVER HEARD OF SHOOTING SOMEONE IN THE LEG?!!?

Jesus Christ, now this man is DEAD. A parent, a father, DEAD.

Way to go, Michigan State police and DHS. Not surprised this was done in ultra-liberal, state-employs-stazi Michigan.


By Frank Michels, Design Editor

2:09 p.m. EDT, March 16, 2012

GRAYLNG — The fatal shooting of William Reddie, 32, by a Crawford County Sheriff’s Department deputy during the “emergency removal” of his 2-year-old son from an apartment they shared has many of his friends crying foul.

A Michigan State Police probe has concluded the shooting was justified because Reddie had a pocketknife and lunged at police.

“I can’t believe they (police) could not subdue Will without killing him, and over what, marijuana,” said Joanne Michal, who knew Reddie for half of his life. “Why didn’t police just arrest him or cite him for marijuana instead of removing his child?”

Workers from the Department of Human Services along with the sheriff’s deputy and an officer from the Grayling City Police went to Reddie’s apartment with a court order to remove the minor child because Reddie had allegedly smoked marijuana in the presence of his son. Reddie was agitated and had allegedly threatened police when confronted with the marijuana accusation earlier in the day on Feb. 3.

The court order of Feb. 3, obtained by the Herald Times pursuant to a Freedom of Information request, indicated the minor child’s removal from Reddie’s custody for the following reason: “There are reasonable grounds for this court to remove the child(ren) from the parent ... because conditions or surroundings of the child(ren), and is contrary to the welfare of the child(ren) to remain in the home because: It is alleged that the father used marijuana in the home in the presence of the child. In addition, there is concern for the safety of the child due to a
domestic disturbance and threats made toward law enforcement by the father.”

A Feb. 3 press release from the sheriff’s department alleged that Reddie had lunged at police and social workers with a knife and the deputy “contained” the situation by shooting Reddie with a revolver.



Reddie died within seconds in his apartment around 4:41 p.m. Feb. 3 after being shot in the chest at close range, according to his death certificate obtained by the Herald Times.

Reddie, who had physical custody of his son, had petitioned the court for permanent custody and a hearing on that petition was scheduled for Monday, Feb. 6.

A resident of the apartment complex, who lived across the parking lot from Reddie, said he saw police go into the apartment and within a few minutes he heard gun shots.

“I heard two shots,” said Brian Jackson. “A friend who lives in the building heard the shots and ran into the hall to see two young children run out. He said Reddie was face down on the floor.”



A state police report said only one shot was fired.

While Michal doesn’t know exactly what happened inside Reddie’s apartment during the shooting, it should have ended differently, she said.

“It is particularly sad that Will was shot to death right in front of his son,” she said. “I was married to a 30-year infantry man and my son is a sharpshooter in the Army. You never take your gun out of the holster unless you’re ready to use it. Why not use a Taser? Even if he (Will) had a knife and lunged at police, they didn’t have to kill him. Instead of using a Taser, you shoot him in front of his child. It is just totally unjustified. They didn’t have to kill him. I think it’s very sad that his life was taken during the removal of his son. And the smell of marijuana shouldn’t have been a reason for an emergency order.

“Just a few days before he was killed, Will was visiting, and he was so excited because a hearing was coming up for custody (of his son),” Michal continued. “And it seemed to give him hope of getting permanent custody. His son was everything to him.”

Michal said she often saw Reddie with his son, although he didn’t like working while he had his son.

Michal had known Reddie since he was a teenager.

“My husband (now deceased) had known Will, and he introduced me to him. Since he was a teenager he’s always done odd jobs around the house and yard.”

Balkis Shippy, another friend of Reddie’s who knew him since he was a teenager, said she still can’t believe it. Shippy, who has lived in Grayling since the early 1970s, said she first knew Reddie’s mother from working with her at the Grayling Big Boy.

Later, Reddie would become friends with Balkis and her husband, Fred.

“He would do odd jobs for us from time to time, and he was always helpful,” she said. “I can’t believe this kid is gone. He was very nice and he was always polite.”

She said Reddie’s son is “just a beautiful little boy. I would see him (Reddie) with his son going back and forth, and he always talked about his son and how some day he would be getting full custody.”

Crawford County Clerk Sandra Moore said she also knew Reddie.

“It’s truly a shame,”Moore said. “He was a good guy and very fond of his son. He had been very excited just days before” about the possibility of getting permanent custody on Feb. 6.

According to court records, the child is now in a foster care home and his future remains uncertain.

It Must Be Because Women are Discriminated Against in the Workplace

of course its stated that men are "less willing" to leave home. Sure, right.

via marketwatch:

As more adults decide to live with mom and dad, young men appear to be less willing to fly the nest than women, a new study finds. This, experts say, could be an early sign of larger economic problems.

Millions of young Americans are living at home, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. The number of “millennials” -- adults aged 18 to 31-- living at home rose to 36% last year. That represented the highest percentage in the last four decades, and a significant increase from 32% just five years earlier. In 2012, 56% of adults aged 18 to 24 lived in their parental home, Pew found, as did 16% of adults aged 25 to 31. However, millennial males (40%) were significantly more likely than millennial females (32%) to live with mom and dad.

There are some demographic reasons for the gender gap. On average, men tend to marry later than women, says Zhenchao Qian, chair of sociology at Ohio State University. “There are more single young men than women out there,” he says. “This gives unmarried men more time to live with their parents.” Men marry at around 29 years of age, approximately two years older than the average for women, and both sexes are marrying around two years later in life than two decades ago, according to a 2012 survey by Bowling Green State University’s National Center for Family and Marriage Research in Ohio.

Click to Play

Is Generation Y Holding Back the Housing Recovery?

Millions of young Americans are unemployed or underemployed, living with roommates or at home with Mom and Dad — instead of buying homes of their own, a new study found. Quentin Fottrell reports. Photo: Getty Images.

Perhaps a more controversial theory: Sons may also have an easier time at home. Even in 2013, parents expect their sons to do less housework than their daughters, Qian says. “Parents give their sons more freedom than their daughters,” says Kit Yarrow, chair of the psychology department at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, Calif. and co-author of “Gen Y.” For Americans aged 18 to 24, “it’s easier for a young man to live at home and still feel independent than it would be for a young woman,” she says. An even less flattering reason: “Women tend to mature, emotionally, faster than men.”

Also see: 10 things Generation Y won’t tell you.

But there are more worrying factors in play than a taste for the comforts of home, says John Bonini, content marketing manager of Impact Branding & Design in Wallingford, Conn., who regularly carries out research on millennials. Women have consistently outnumbered men when it comes to college enrollment, he says. “Since the economic downturn, with many state and local governments cutting spending, and manual labor jobs doing the same, it would make sense that those with college degrees would see a greater chance of gaining employment than those without one.” Many young men, he says, are getting left behind.

Young women tend to outperform men in post-secondary education. Some 71.3% of female high school graduates in the class of 2012 enrolled in college versus 61.3% of males, according to the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The former also appear to be better students. “Females tend to finish college faster than males,” according to the Pew report. What’s more, men who had earned bachelor’s degrees in 2011 had an unemployment rate of 16.1% in October 2011, compared with 11.2% among females, a separate Bureau of Labor Statistics report found.

Regardless of sex, children living at home longer put a bigger financial burden on their parents and the economy. Hosting a son or daughter after 18 can cost $8,000 to $18,000 a year, according to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal. And the fact that around 22.6 million young adults are still living at home also means there are fewer renters and potential buyers of first-time homes in the property market. Only 450,000 new households are being created annually versus 1.1 million before the recession, according to real-estate marketplace Trulia; 18- to 34-year-olds make up half of that demand. 

See more: “The kids aren’t buying homes.”