Senators Caught on Tape: "Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate"

Sadly most will believe the "its for your safety" bit until it becomes
brutally clear and they cannot ignore it anymore, it seems they do
not yet understand just how much their life will change, sad because
its never clear until its too late.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Your title, quote and comment are misleading.

The 'Senators' are maybe State Senators for the State of New Jersey. You don't say what they want to 'confiscate' - I thought maybe it was 'bank balances' when I saw the headline. And you do nothing to dispell the possible mis-understanding in your comment.

Thanks to my teachers for teaching me to check sources - mine and others.

Oh...I'm sorry. I didn't realize I must hold your wee little hand to help you understand. I apologize that I assumed you would click on the link, see that it was a NEW JERSEY centric website and read

Second Amendment rights advocates are fuming today over words from three Democratic state senators caught on tape after Thursday's hearing on the upper chamber's gun control package.

The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing.

As to your other comment, I clearly stated in my post:

They go on to talk about how the purpose of confiscation is to "get the guns away from bad guys."

How on earth does that relate to bank balances????


Further, if you read the entire story OR listened to the actual audio that another poster attached to the thread, then you would have clearly understood that this story is about confiscating GUNS. Period. Not regulating....CONFISCATING.

And yes, you may say "who cares....it's a New Jersey state issue, not national." You have that right...one given to you by people with GUNS who protect your freedom. But this push to severely limit or remove the 2nd amendment is endemic to the Democratic party whether it be New Jersey, Washington, or elsewhere.

Oh...and ETA: My title was the title of the news article and this is BREAKING POLITICAL NEWS. That's supposed to be the point isn't it??? I reported as it was reported.

reply to post by CIAGypsy

Once they take all the guns away from the people that comply with the law, the only ones left with any weapons are the criminals. Is that what they want? Don't answer that, Unfortunately I already know the answer.

reply to post by Carreau


You have an interesting belief that Fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum. Fascist propaganda usually focuses on the evils of communism but I guess that's obsolete now. Fascists now just rename communism and socialism as fascism as a diversion tactic and ignoramuses are eating it up. Your lethal toy collection isn't protecting you, now what?

"the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."
-Roderick Stackleberg

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
www.politickernj.com...

The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing.

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate," said an unknown voice.

Of course, since there has been an uproar, none of the individuals involved are admitting they are the one who said it....

They go on to talk about how the purpose of confiscation is to "get the guns away from bad guys." I'll let it stay open to interpretation on who the "bad guys" really are in their opinions.... In my experience, CRIMINALS who use guns typically use stolen weapons to begin with....

The one thing that troubles me, is the tie in between leftism, Jewish-atheists(non practicing Jew's) and the whole "take guns away from Christian so we can mass murder them". It is no different then NAZI's demanding that Jewish persons wear stars on their clothing, and equally revolting. More education on the Holodomor is needed in our educational system, and education about the millions upon millions of others across Eastern Europe and Russia that where butchered by the Bolsheviks after they where disarmed.

Originally posted by InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by Carreau

 

You have an interesting belief that Fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum. Fascist propaganda usually focuses on the evils of communism but I guess that's obsolete now. Fascists now just rename communism and socialism as fascism as a diversion tactic and ignoramuses are eating it up. Your lethal toy collection isn't protecting you, now what?

"the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."
-Roderick Stackleberg

Fascism, Communism and Socialism are all European constructs, and all those Constructs have the same beginnings. The reason there is "Communism" and that there is "Socialism", is because the early collectivists after the French Revolution didn't really see eye to eye. Yes, Communism, Socialism and to a degree Fascism, where all created to replace an absolute, French Feudal Monarchy. That is why communism and socialism are so utterly insane, because they are trying to replicate a perfected form of insanity.

The whole concept of right-left that your using is so utterly dishonest(unless your a European serf) that it nukes any argument you try to make.

Left-Right, in the American traditional sense(before leftists began immigrating to America and polluting it with French Communist and Socialist stupidity), is the more left you go, the more power the state has. The further right you go, the more power the individual has.

This political view would judge both the Democrat and Republican Party's as leftists. Socially, the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, and economically the Republican Party is more to the left than the Democratic Party. Politically, both the Republican and Democratic Party are far left extremest, or at the least, the Party's "ruling" element, firmly believes the have an absolute right to "rule", as shown by both the Democrat and Republican Parties sabotage of non anointed groups within those parties(The Democrats allowed Obama to rig the Democratic primaries in 08, and Republican's allowed and encouraged similar behavior from Romney in 12).

Both Political Parties follow the leftist ideal of a select(or special), Proletarian class.

I really wish people would pay attention to the beginnings of things instead of mindlessly giving support to someone else's thoughts. By quoting another person, and making your resting case(or in the case of your post the intellectual core) on theirs thoughts, you are allowing yourself to become enslaved to group think. Even if it doesn't sound as catchy, quote yourself. Develop your own thoughts and break free from the evils of group think.

Perhaps that is why those on the left often despise those on the right, because those on the right have the courage to think their own thoughts, to develop their own minds. And if someone has a "deadly collection of toy's:, that is enough to keep cowards who can't think for themselves from trying to keep them from thinking their own thoughts.

reply to post by CIAGypsy

In my experience, CRIMINALS who use guns typically use stolen weapons to begin with....

True, but if there are no legal guns, it's hard for there to be no illegal guns. The culture is the most important part of gun control. And it goes far beyond the criminal aspect, or the legal aspect. It has to do with many other parts of society.

In some places in the world, you simply cannot allow guns without absolute dire consequences. In Africa, inject guns into the population (be it legally or illegally) and you will have murder rates skyrocket.

Try it in a tamer European country that may have no need for guns to begin with beyond collecting, and no real change is seen.

In any case, cultural issues are the most important. Education is another. (Gun education especially).

Both sides have an argument when it comes to gun control, it's as simple as that. What you have to ask yourselves is, do we have the culture that can own guns responsibly?

There are many examples of years late, showing that there is trouble on the horizon...

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
www.politickernj.com...

The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing.

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate," said an unknown voice.

Of course, since there has been an uproar, none of the individuals involved are admitting they are the one who said it....

They go on to talk about how the purpose of confiscation is to "get the guns away from bad guys." I'll let it stay open to interpretation on who the "bad guys" really are in their opinions.... In my experience, CRIMINALS who use guns typically use stolen weapons to begin with....

So that is the kind of journalism you trust and believe? How do you know that any of them are senators purely based on the fact the 'reporter' - I use the term extremely loosely suggests it?

reply to post by Kharron


A lot of you Obama apologists keep using this excuse, "they aren't the first" Well shouldn't they be the last? It obviously needs to stop, why would you give the current administration a pass just because previous admins were guilty of the same thing? Wrong is Wrong, doesn't matter if your Democrat, Republican, or independent.

little guns

www.politickernj.com...

Originally posted by korathin

Fascism, Communism and Socialism are all European constructs, and all those Constructs have the same beginnings. The reason there is "Communism" and that there is "Socialism", is because the early collectivists after the French Revolution didn't really see eye to eye. Yes, Communism, Socialism and to a degree Fascism, where all created to replace an absolute, French Feudal Monarchy. That is why communism and socialism are so utterly insane, because they are trying to replicate a perfected form of insanity.

The whole concept of right-left that your using is so utterly dishonest(unless your a European serf) that it nukes any argument you try to make.

Left-Right, in the American traditional sense(before leftists began immigrating to America and polluting it with French Communist and Socialist stupidity), is the more left you go, the more power the state has. The further right you go, the more power the individual has.

This political view would judge both the Democrat and Republican Party's as leftists. Socially, the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, and economically the Republican Party is more to the left than the Democratic Party. Politically, both the Republican and Democratic Party are far left extremest, or at the least, the Party's "ruling" element, firmly believes the have an absolute right to "rule", as shown by both the Democrat and Republican Parties sabotage of non anointed groups within those parties(The Democrats allowed Obama to rig the Democratic primaries in 08, and Republican's allowed and encouraged similar behavior from Romney in 12).

Both Political Parties follow the leftist ideal of a select(or special), Proletarian class.

I really wish people would pay attention to the beginnings of things instead of mindlessly giving support to someone else's thoughts. By quoting another person, and making your resting case(or in the case of your post the intellectual core) on theirs thoughts, you are allowing yourself to become enslaved to group think. Even if it doesn't sound as catchy, quote yourself. Develop your own thoughts and break free from the evils of group think.

Perhaps that is why those on the left often despise those on the right, because those on the right have the courage to think their own thoughts, to develop their own minds. And if someone has a "deadly collection of toy's:, that is enough to keep cowards who can't think for themselves from trying to keep them from thinking their own thoughts.

Monarchies were the epitomy of small government throughout the world. It is not a european creation as such, not at all. You are misinformed about an awful lot of what you say.

Just answer me this question: If small government is desirable and monarchies epitomised that concept, then how could small government be good???? You can't answer this question with a straight face because you mistakingly confuse small and big government that is almost totally irrellevant with good and evil.

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production and the government acting as proxy for the owners. It is a peoples government, not an elitist right wing government. The UN is controlled by elitists whether they be central bankers or monarchies or aliens or something else.

The american defintion of right vs left is NO DIFFERENT than the right vs left definition of any other country. The world does not revolve around america and its deranged government along with its hugely misinformed voting base.

reply to post by korathin


You are confusing the democrats as progressives, when in fact they are liberals, and liberals are almost as elitist as the conservatives. To conserve means *to keep*, as in to keep the current status quo. A liberal is something between a conservative and a progressive, which means they PRETEND to be anti status quo. They apply superficial redistribution schemes, lots of laws to prevent corruption that are never meant to be enforced against the elite but only against the common man. In short they are hypocrites!

Proggisivism means to go forward which stems from progress. To change the sick status quo as has been for thousands of years. To push for more equality wherever necessary. To try and redistribute some of the wealth from the uber rich elitists. To make society more efficient and work for a better tomorrow.

National Socialists were demonised for this very reason and had to fail. The UN and the monarchists threw every resource they could muster to squash progressives before they could become formidable enough to challenge them. National Socialists brought down monarchies throughout europe and as such were the number one enemy. They even had to enroll communists to help them. Communism is pseudo-socialism!

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

You have an interesting belief that Fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum. Fascist propaganda usually focuses on the evils of communism but I guess that's obsolete now. Fascists now just rename communism and socialism as fascism as a diversion tactic and ignoramuses are eating it up

Fascism is an element of socialism. Both Hitler and Mussolini, thee fascists of the last century, were socialist. National Socialism is just a nationalist version of the International Socialists. Please allow me to clear up the confusion with some quotes from Antony Sutton from his book, "America's Secret Establishment"

Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...
So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious - so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions -- Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on -- all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of "right" and "left." They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge.

This manipulation of "left" and "right" on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where "left" and "right" political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

www.prisonplanet.com...

So in essence, the Skull and Bones Hegelians created a false left/right paradigm involving supposed opposites facism/communism, although both systems give the State absolute authoritarian power over the individual. As Sutton explains, the concept of individual liberty never even comes into the conversation.

So it is much easier if one puts it into a slightly different perspective: Statism on one side and Liberty on the other. I hope that helps.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You are confusing the democrats as progressives

There are Progressives within the Democrat Party. Wouldn't you say that any one of the 70 members of Congress who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America must of necessity be Progressives by definition? Even Hillary said out loud that she wished to be called Progressive and not liberal. Remember that conversation? Not so long ago?
Nationalizing the oil industry would be considered a Progressive ideal would it not? Did not Maxine Watters, A Democrat in Congress say out loud she wished to "social...uh uh basically take over" all the oil companies?
On the other hand, we have Rosa Koire who says she is liberal and NOT Progressive.

reply to post by korathin


Your argument made sense to me up till this point:

and economically the Republican Party is more to the left than the Democratic Party

Since Republicans tend to think of Capitalism and free enterprise as the best base for American economy, and Democrats tend to think in terms of the welfare state and redistribution of income, I must disagree with this one statement of yours. Economically most Republicans tend to prefer Capitalism to Socialism, though Democrats will use Capital to create their Socialist State. One thing I will say is that both Republicans and Democrats have been tying us up in more and more bureaucratic legislation, which by any standard is more Statist.
Perhaps you meant that Republicans will allow corporate welfare while Democrats push social welfare programs. I think this is wrong too, because Obama has given money and perks to all his crony friends in both the Unions and corporate side of things(Solyndra comes to mind, and Goldman Sachs are plentiful in this admin).

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Proggisivism means to go forward which stems from progress. To change the sick status quo as has been for thousands of years.

Jonah Goldberg explains in his book, "Liberal Fascism", that Progressives embraced Hitler and Fascism during the buildup before WWII. He explains that Progressives embraced eugenics and population control(Margaret Sanger and the American Birth Control League springs to mind) before Hitler gave it a "black eye". American Birth Control League is now Planned Parenthood. It is and always was a "Progressive" activity and point of view that people should limit their family size through various means as a way to keep population growth under control. I would defy you to prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill Gates is not a Progressive, that Margaret Sanger was not a Progressive. Progressives thought that the practice of eugenics was a Progressive idea moving society "forward" in a less populated sense, and weeding out the poor, the unhealthy, the unwanted, etc.

Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

According to Goldberg, progressives' affinity for fascism was quite understandable because, contrary to popular misconception: “[F]ascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”
To clarify this point, a working definition of fascism is in order. A comprehensive discussion of fascism's tenets and variations can be located here, but for the purpose of this discussion, fascism can be distilled down to this: It is a totalitarian movement that empowers an omnipotent government to control every nook and cranny of political, economic, social, and private life – generally in the name of “the public good.”

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Monarchies still subscribe to a system of absolute rule by someone at the top. This is why Marxists were against Monarchial rule because it allowed for a society of classes in which the nobles and the merchants controlled the proletariat. Merchants are considered bourgeois to Socialists.
Today America does not operate under Monarchial rule, it operates under a Constitutional Republic in which the common people have access to leadership by means of the elected body of legislators. Still, the socialists want a more "direct democracy" rather than rulership by representation. In other words, Socialists want a "dictatorship of the Proletariat". However, it must be noted that even Marx and Lenin admitted that a dictatorship of the proletariat would of necessity have someone running things at the top. Because Socialism and Communism are both systems of statism and Communism is absolute statism.
It can be noted that during the time of Marx, a classless society would have eliminated the ruling monarchy as well as wealthy nobles and merchants. In other words, nobody can be rich but everyone can have the modest things required to survive.
Anyone who is wealthy is going to be subject to the redistribution agendas of Marxists. Except of course the ruling proletariat such as Nancy Pelosi and Georgy Schwartz.
It must be said, that in order to have the perfect Totalitarian Utopian society where all the worker proletariat bees are under control, the worker bees must not be armed so they don't turn in insurrection against their Totalitarian ruling masters.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


Money under the table has taken that mentality out of the situation. I know exactly how you feel, the government is a complete disaster but people keep participating in it. I just wish that towns would stop voting, buying gas, and go completely local. This would somehow slow down the government machine that it is. It would eventually spread to other counties because a local town who keeps it local seems to be a more healthy town overall. I guess I belong in a different time frame. I am also a political atheist and a voluntaryist.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes both facism and communism are left orientated and both are statist but there are still enormous differences between the two. Facism was italian style national socialism and communism means everything is state owned and operated.

You have an aversion with statism regardless what it is for and who runs it.

Libertarianism itself can be considered "statism" because everything is somewhat abstract. The only political system that is not statist is anarchy, which means no government(thus no rules) and everyone fends for themeselves.

You are not fooling people by playing the libertarian card to hide your conservative side. You are pro status-quo in more ways then you care to admit.

Further I am not a communist and I despise it, but one should wonder why the UN(which has been infiltrated by elitists from day 1) has so much beef with countries like north korea and cuba. Sanctions and war till people die from starvation.

What I am for is national socialism. I am not a facist or a nazi. There were many national socialist countries during the 20s, 30s and 40s in europe. I am closer to center than to left. Just slightly left of center.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Lets keep concepts as simple as humanely possible! WHERE do you see national socialism today and HOW does bill gates and margaret sanger, nancy pelosi promote it? Do you not see they are satanic globalists under zionist control?

Really lets keep it simple please. People can claim whatever the heck they want. Some sick people claim they are god, does that mean we should believe them? If they wanted to discredit progessivism, as they have done so thoroughly till now, would they not do so exactly this way? I mean infiltrate various ideological groups and world government bodies and claim to be representing them?

The alternative is international capitalism run by bilderbergers, private central banks, zionist shills, satanists, wall street monopolies like ibm, cisco, coca cola, monsato, microsoft, etc. International capitalism sucks because it is judeo-christian(usa-israel) based monopoly capitalism.