Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Sikh Massacre: Eyewitness Testimony CONTRADICTS Official Story

In less than two weeks time, after the Colorado "Batman" movie theatre shootings, which killed a dozen people and injured scores of others, a similar scenario emerges, this time at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, killing half a dozen people and injuring several others. The official reports from main stream media claim that a lone gun man single-handedly carried out the shootings in each incidents. However, testimonies by eyewitnesses from either events claim that there were multiple shooters. What is interesting is the ever growing inconsistency in media coverage of such crimes. Have a look at the video clippings below from both incidents where eye witness accounts totally CONTRADICTS the official stories.

Hardly a week ago, I wrote on how the calls for "Gun Control" is being pushed down the throats of Americans in the wake of the Colorado "Batman" shootings. Shortly after, we hear this Sikh temple massacre. It seems more Gun Control nonsense is coming down the pipe after the Sikh Temple shootings in Wisconsin. When it comes to mass murders like this, there is a common thread among the major cases that we have seen in recent years that has nothing to do with guns at all. The mainstream media does not talk about it, but the truth is that mass murderers are almost always found to be on legal drugs of one kind or another.

Sikh Massacre: Eyewitness Testimony CONTRADICTS Official Story

Batman Massacre: Eyewitness Testimony CONTRADICTS Official Story

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

More Gun Control Nonsense after Wisconsin

by Jacob G. Hornberger, The Future of Freedom Foundation

Let’s review the arguments of the gun-control crowd in the wake of the shooting at the Sikh temple in Milwaukee. 

Wisconsin is a concealed-carry state — that is, one in which people with state-issued permits are allowed to carry guns that are concealed.

Some concealed-carry states make an exception for churches. In those states, people with concealed carry permits are not permitted to bring their concealed guns into church.

Not Wisconsin. Under Wisconsin law, people with permits are free to carry a concealed weapon into a church unless the church chooses to prohibit it.

So, there’s the first argument of the gun-control crowd: that Wisconsin law should have prohibited people from carrying concealed weapons into churches. The argument is that if Wisconsin had made it illegal to carry concealed weapons into church, the killer wouldn’t have killed those people at that Sikh temple.

Is that not a ridiculous argument on its face? Why would the killer care that the law made it illegal for him to carry a gun into church? Was he really going to say to himself, “I’m going to go kill those people but I have to figure out a way to do it without a gun because it’s illegal for me to carry a gun into church?”

Consider this excerpt from a Newsday article about the Wisconsin killing:
“Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65, managed to find a simple butter knife in the temple and attempted to stab the gunman before being shot twice, his son said Monday.”

Imagine that: taking a butter knife to a gun fight. Why is that an important point? Because it shows that when people are disarmed, the only people who will have guns are the criminals. The rest will have butter knives or worse.

I don’t know whether that Sikh temple had implemented a policy prohibiting guns or whether the members of the temple simply had decided, as a matter of personal practice, to not carry guns to the temple.

But two things are for sure: The killer didn’t care one whit what the temple’s policy was and, two, people there were unable to adequately defend themselves. They had to wait for the police to arrive.

So, why would it be better to make it illegal to carry guns into churches? All that they are doing with such a law is disarming peaceful, law-abiding people who might choose to have a gun to defend themselves from killers who aren’t going to obey the law anyway. That doesn’t necessarily mean people will exercise the right to defend themselves. It simply means that the right is available to be exercised.

Another argument the gun-control crowd makes is that the law needs to have stricter standards for who gets to purchase a gun. But wasn’t that the argument for requiring people to undergo background checks? Wasn’t that the argument requiring state-issued permits to carry a concealed weapon — to ensure that the “wrong” people didn’t get guns.

The fact is that the presumed killer in Wisconsin complied with all the restrictions that had been put into place to make sure that only the “right” people got a hold of guns.

Of course, what the gun-control crowd really wants, but won’t say it, are restrictions so severe that no one can acquire a gun. That’s the way it’s been in Washington, D.C., which has long been known as the murder capital of the world. Most of those murders are committed with guns — yes, with guns that are illegal to have. Shocking! The killers violate not only D.C.’s laws against murder but also D.C.’s gun-control laws. It’s the victims who have complied with the law and given up any realistic chance to defend themselves, well, except for possibly having a stock of butter knives to defend themselves against murderers with guns.

The last argument the gun-control crowd uses is their naive belief that gun control will eradicate all guns in society, like in Cuba, North Korea, and China. That, of course, means nationalization and confiscation of all private firearms, just as the federal government did with gold in the 1930s. Everyone would be required to send his guns to the government, on pain of a felony conviction on failure to do so.

But there are a few big problems. There are more than 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States. What if many people didn’t send in their guns, as is likely? Wouldn’t the establishment of a police state be necessary to find and confiscate all the guns? Wouldn’t snitching become an established practice in society? Wouldn’t the prisons be even more overcrowded than they already are?

And what assurance is there that all the guns would be found and confiscated? The war on drugs makes it illegal to own drugs and we all know how successful that has been in eradicating drugs from society. Making guns illegal would immediately generate a black market in guns, not only in the sale of existing guns but also in the illegal manufacture of new ones.

And guess who is going to be acquiring guns in such a market. Yes, the bad guys. And guess who isn’t going to be acquiring guns in such a market? That’s right — peaceful, law-abiding people who will have been deprived of their ability to defend themselves.

It’s time to reject, once and for all, the gun-control crowd’s arguments. People’s time would be better served exploring the extent to which the U.S. government’s indifference to the value of human life in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere has contributed to the same type of mindset of deranged people here at home.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.  

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

13th August London Olympics

by Kevin Boyle, No One To Vote For

Maybe something dreadful will happen.

Maybe nothing will happen at all.

If something does happen it will probably be in a form or manner that surprises us all.

The predictive-programming 'Conspiracy' films have been out there for a long time.

The current security chaos surrounding G4S and its Olympic security contract could mean anything. Preparing the ground for coming disaster. Resistance within elements of the local powers-that-be........

......anything. We cannot know.

What we can be sure of is this.

If any kind of mega-event takes place in London before, during or shorty after the Olympic games then the perpetrators will not be 'terrorists' or 'aliens' but persons acting under the direction of our real government, the international network of Judeo-Masonic finance oligarchs.


The opening and closing ceremonies have been flagged up as likely targets for terrorist attacks,  but it appears more likely that the most probable date for any such event is Monday 13th August.

This guess, right or wrong, is based on three pieces of information:

1) G4S Whistleblower Ben Fellows said he was advised that he would be involved in an event which he described as a “defining moment in the history of London” after the Olympics and so he naturally thought it would be during the Para Olympics……he was then advised it was nothing to do with the Olympics but with something else.

The 13th August is the day after the Olympics closing ceremony...........but perhaps the much-predicted 'event' could take place anywhere, even on an another continent, and be a 'defining moment' in the history of not only London but everywhere else besides.

2) A 2010 Rockefeller Foundation document entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”  ‘predicts’ that the decade of 2010-2020 will be named “The Doom Decade”, because of  a wave of terrorist attacks, natural disasters as well as civil uprisings and financial collapses.
The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.
Looked at rationally, this 'scenario' is pure fiction. However, we know by now that the people at the centre of power are occultists who communicate with each other in numerical codes based on their own 'magic numbers'.

Why the number 13,000? There is no obvious reason for choosing this. Such an article, however seemingly ridiculous, is certainly not purposeless. Michael Hoffman has written that it is part of the 'occult trajectory' for practitioners of the dark arts to signal their intentions to their friends and their victims in order to inform their friends and create a kind of  complicity in their victims and, thus, a real sense of helplessness in those outside the power nexus.

Does the 13 refer to the 13th August?

3) The 13th August 2012 can be written thus:

13/08/12 or, in the USA, 08/13/12

13 + 8 + 12 = 33

This is the most powerful and well-known masonic/satanic number after 666. 33 degree masons are said to have participated in the "Killing of the King" ritual.

Speculation such as this about False-Flag terrorist events is written, of course, in the hope that 

a) the propagation of such speculation will prevent any such planned event from going ahead.

b) people will understand who is responsible and who is not, should such an event  take place.

Source: http://kevboyle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/13th-august-london-olympics.html