Pistol Grip Essentials

18 Oct

English: Operating a pistol-grip drill - schem...

English: Operating a pistol-grip drill (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Those of you who’re interested in defending yourself with a semi-automatic pistol may want to learn the always impressive “gangsta grip”.

Or, if you’re merely more interested in style than substance, the “gangsta grip” may be just your cup of tea–or crack, as the case may be.




Posted by on October 18, 2012 in Humor, Video


Tags: ,

5 responses to “Pistol Grip Essentials

  1. sem

    October 18, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    Super Kewl…Dude!


    PS “survival of the fittest” (Yo’ Mama!)

  2. sem

    October 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    Why Is The Gansta Grip Important?

    Consider the following:

    If the law won’t stop market rigging, what can we do?

    By: Chris Powell, Secretary/Treasurer, GATA

    — Posted Thursday, 18 October 2012 | Share this article| Source:

    Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

    GATA’s friend and researcher R.M. writes today from Europe:

    “If the U.S. judiciary deemed protection of the nation’s currency or similar national interests (such as stable financial markets and oil prices) as justification not to prosecute a cartel’s war against gold by federal authorities, foreign governments, and their agents, could anti-trust law ever be brought to bear against such activity in our lifetimes?

    “What I’m asking essentially is: What is the Achilles’ heel of gold market collusion that would provoke enforcement in a compromised judicial system?”

    I have replied to R.M. as follows.

    As I read the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 as amended, it authorizes the U.S. government to trade secretly not just in the gold market but in any market:

    The Gold Reserve Act describes its objective as “an orderly system of exchange rates.” Any administration almost certainly would construe that objective as an exemption from anti-trust law and I doubt that any court would have the nerve to disagree.

    This question came up more or less during the first lawsuit against gold market manipulation, the lawsuit brought by Reginald Howe with GATA’s support in U.S. District Court in Boston in 2001 against the Bank for International Settlements, the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department, and various bullion banks. For the details of that lawsuit, see the entry for “Gold Price Fixing Case” at Howe’s Internet site here:

    There was only one public proceeding in that case, held in Boston on November 5, 2001, on the defendants’ motion for dismissal via “summary judgment.” “Summary judgment” is a determination by the court that even if everything in the plaintiff’s complaint is true, there is no remedy at law and nothing for the court to do about it. I attended that hearing. While I had to sit in the back of the courtoorm and the acoustics were not good, I heard an assistant U.S. attorney assert that the government, without admitting that it was doing what Howe complained of, very much claimed the power to do it. See my report on the hearing as posted at GATA’s old Internet site here:

    The government lawyer’s assertion in support of “summary judgment” against Howe was pretty much a confession and perhaps the great success of the lawsuit. The government lawyer’s assertion outlined the whole scheme.

    After all, the United States was essentially on a gold standard through 1968 and the collapse of the London Gold Pool and then through 1971 when President Nixon discontinued gold redemption of dollars held by foreign governments, and by definition a gold standard is government’s rigging of the gold price. Nobody suggested back then that such market rigging was illegal. Howe argued that since the U.S. government had formally unfixed the gold price in 1971, free-market law had to be construed to have taken over.

    Since the judge granted “summary judgment” to the defendants on a jurisdictional issue — Howe’s supposed lack of standing to sue in the first place, a dodge by the court — the issue of authority for market rigging was never settled.

    But the U.S. Treasury Department acknowledged to GATA in 2005 that it claims comprehensive market-rigging power under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, under which, upon a proclamation of an emergency by the president, the Treasury Department would consider itself authorized to seize or freeze not just gold and silver and gold- and silver-related assets but and and all financial assets. See GATA’s correspondence with the Treasury Department in the “Confiscation” section of our Internet site here:

    Given the totalitarian scope of the U.S. government’s claim to power, I long have believed that the way to defeat the government’s market rigging is simply to expose it to enough participants in the rigged markets. That’s why GATA sued the Federal Reserve for gold information in 2009 and beat the Fed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last year, extracting some very compromising information:

    And it’s why we will bring another freedom-of-information lawsuit against the Fed, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the U.S. State Department as soon as our finances allow:

    For people won’t trade in markets they understand to be rigged. When people realize how and why the major gold markets are rigged and almost always have been rigged, they’ll go outside those markets to get their gold — taking delivery of their metal and moving it outside the banking system, as Jim Sinclair and others on our side long have urged. Such removal of gold from the banking system is exactly what caused the collapse of the London Gold Pool, a fully public operation, in March 1968 —

    — and such removal of gold from the banking system will be, I think, what collapses the current London Gold Pool, a largely surreptitious operation, which GATA board member Adrian Douglas has exposed so well:

    I suspect that some Sunday evening before the Tokyo markets open there will be an announcement from a secret conference of central bankers — maybe held at BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, or in Frankfurt, Singapore, or Washington again (where the Washington Agreement on Gold was devised, even though the United States was not a signatory) — about new currency exchange rates. These new exchange rates likely will include a price that the participating central banks henceforth will pay for gold — a much higher price than today’s.

    Such an announcement will signify that the second London Gold Pool has failed just as the first did. The gold for market rigging will have run out and the central banks and their governments will offer a premium to recover it. Maybe their offer will be of the “godfather” sort, an offer people can’t refuse, an offer accompanied by the threat of criminal prosecution of gold owners, or accompanied by a punitive “windfall profits” tax. Or maybe the central banks and their governments will just be good sports and admit that they finally lost another round in the gold game and start up a new one.

    Whatever the central banks and their governments do, they won’t be alerting us in advance — just their agent bullion banks. But all will be revealed at last, and even the silly Jeff Christians and Jon Nadlers will see it, if they really don’t already see it and are just doing their dirty jobs of disinformation.

    Given the recent research by Sprott Asset Management’s Eric Sprott and David Baker —

    — and GoldMoney’s James Turk and Juan Castenada —

    — I think that we just might live to see the day. Then “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” and it will be a great day indeed:

    CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
    Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

    * * *

    PS A Government That Does Not Rule The Courts…Does Not Rule.

  3. tim

    October 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM


  4. sem

    October 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    Dollar Sell-off and Hyperinflation by 2014 – John Williams

    October 24, 2012, at 11:56 am
    by Greg Hunter in the category | Print This Post | Email This Post

    Greg Hunter’s

    Dear CIGAs,

    Economist John Williams says the latest round of “open-ended” QE has set the table for a global “dollar sell-off” and “hyperinflation” no later than 2014. Williams says, “There’s no way the consumer can fuel the economic recovery, and there is no way we’re going to see one in the near future.” Williams predicts, “The Treasury is going to have funding problems, and that means the deficit gets a lot worse.”

    Now, there is talk the Fed might increase the money printing. Williams charges, “The Fed’s primary concern is to keep the banking system afloat, and they’re not doing so well with that.” Williams contends there is 12 trillion in liquid dollar assets held outside the U.S. Williams says it is only a matter of time before all the Fed money printing will “trigger a sell-off . . . and that will provide the early start of the hyperinflation.” You think the U.S. is better off today than it was in the last meltdown? Not according to Williams, he thinks, “. . . things have gotten a lot worse.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with John Williams of

  5. sem

    October 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    Major Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP’s Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury
    Published: Thursday, 25 Oct 2012 | 2:09 PM ET

    NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Spire Law Group, LLP’s national home owners’ lawsuit, pending in the venue where the “Banksters” control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) – known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the “Banksters” and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers – now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the “Banksters” located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

    In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former “communications director” for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

    In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP — on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws — has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000.00) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other “bailout money” advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress. Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the “Banksters” criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same “Banksters” to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the “Bankster” Defendants.

    The complaint – which has now been fully served on thousands of the “Banksters and their Co-Conspirators” – makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very “Banksters” located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be “bailed out” and to be “bailed out” in the future.

    The Havens for the money laundering schemes – and certain of the names and places of these entities – are located in such venues as Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Cypress and entities controlled by governments adverse to the interests of the United States Sanctions and Embargo Act against Iran, and are also identified in both the United Nations and the U.S. Senate’s recent reports on international money laundering. Many of these entities have already been personally served with summons and process of the complaint during the last six months. It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by “Banksters”, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s