John B. Wells

[thefamilyghost]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  Did I hear John B. Wells suggest last night that the murders of the children and adults at Sandy Hook may have been "a setup?"  A setup conceived and carried out by our government as a pretext to gathering up the people's guns?  So they will be free to commit genocide on the American people?  It sure sounded like that to me.  Is that what I heard?

I know Coast to CoastAM is a steaming pile of shit but I would like someone to verify for me that they really sunk this low last night.  Did I really hear what I think I heard?

He also thinks Hillary Clinton's recent health problems are a ruse to avoid talking about Benghazi. He and his guest were making some rather sardonic jokes about her blood clots. I wouldn't mind smashing his face with a frying pan.

[ItsOver]

.....Interesting the statue shows a musket...Maybe that's a clue in interpretation of 'bear arms'.

Maybe that's because Winchester lever-actions weren't available at the local Bass Pro during that time.  :

[Yorkshire pud]

He also thinks Hillary Clinton's recent health problems are a ruse to avoid talking about Benghazi. He and his guest were making some rather sardonic jokes about her blood clots. I wouldn't mind smashing his face with a frying pan.

  There's something eternally hilarious about seeing such as Wells being given their cumuppance with something as mundane as a frying pan! It's visons of Charlie Chaplin and Laural and Hardy about it. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Maybe that's because Winchester lever-actions weren't available at the local Bass Pro during that time.  :

And maybe that was the levelof the need that was envisaged. (which is perfectly understandable, seeing as neither Winchesters or modern semi/fully automatic wepons were around either); not four dozen or so that Alex Jones claims to own, or the hundreds of rounds of ammunition that can be purchased that can kill an elephant..Yeah, paranoia has no concept of 'excess'...  :

[Sleepwalker]

That's what he said. Wells is a member of that conspiracy-driven group who think that all tragedies involving guns (and some that don't, like 9/11) are false-flag government operations designed to drum up anti-gun sentiment.

He also thinks Hillary Clinton's recent health problems are a ruse to avoid talking about Benghazi. He and his guest were making some rather sardonic jokes about her blood clots. I wouldn't mind smashing his face with a frying pan.

I wonder how many future Timothy McVeighs and Adam Lanzas are being inspired by this delusional conspiracy fest known at Coast to Coast AM? There are probably more than a few of them, smoking meth and stockpiling guns, ammunition and freeze-dried food, getting ready for the day the "govermint" comes to imprison and kill them.  And George thinks those who find Coast to Coast AM to be an irresponsible, disgusting, delusional, steaming pile of bat guano are "haters and loser."  If that's the case, then I'm proud to be a "hater and loser."

[somatichypermutation]

I cannot believe Premiere is really allowing the true conspiracy fringe onto their shows.  It is not a responsible public policy.

[Eddie Coyle]

I wonder how many future Timothy McVeighs and Adam Lanzas are being inspired by this delusional conspiracy fest known at Coast to Coast AM? There are probably more than a few of them, smoking meth and stockpiling guns, ammunition and freeze-dried food, getting ready for the day the "govermint" comes to imprison and kill them.  And George thinks those who find Coast to Coast AM to be an irresponsible, disgusting, delusional, steaming pile of bat guano are "haters and loser."  If that's the case, then I'm proud to be a "hater and loser."

Nuts are nuts. They can be inspired by The White Album, Taxi Driver, Batman films, video games,books etc. The nightly news can inspire them. The Bible or Koran can inspire them. And the hard cores like McVeigh would probably look at C2C as part of the "ZOG media complex", and get their info from a samizdat network that would make Alex Jones look like Thom Hartman. You're giving C2C and it's miniscule ratings way too much power and influence.

             We literally have a mass murder a week(at least). Has any one of these killers pointed a finger at C2C yet?
         

[Juan]

That's not even the most outlandish rumor about Hillary and her injuries.  There are reports out of the Middle East that she was injured in a plane crash at an airport in Iran.  She was sneaking into the country, Kissinger style, for a secret meeting with Aba, Adaba, whatever the hell his name is.

[Yorkshire pud]

That's not even the most outlandish rumor about Hillary and her injuries.  There are reports out of the Middle East that she was injured in a plane crash at an airport in Iran.  She was sneaking into the country, Kissinger style, for a secret meeting with Aba, Adaba, whatever the hell his name is.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, perchance?

[ufogadfly]

This was a coast show I could enjoy. Just pure fun. The more ludicrous, the better.

Just finished listening to the Potter interview. As someone who's very open to most of the topics discussed on C2C (used to host similar myself) I still have to say, "What a whacko!" He's either delusional or an outright charlatan. I stayed with it up to the point where Wells said there was difficulty in hearing "Cobra," (WTF!) then couldn't take any more. At least JBW didn't fawn and constantly agree like Noory would have.

[PB the Deplorable]

Sure, and similarly you can't guarantee that you won't be struck by lightning two hundred times, eaten by a giant white whale, abducted by aliens, or be the discoverer of the magic pill that will cure all known ills..However, all have something in common. Likelihood. If such a scenario were to take place, quite what anyone with a rifle would expect to do against tanks, A10's, RPG's, and chemical ordinance is worth a thread on it's own! Incidentally, I believe it's illegal (so far) for civilans to hold armed tanks, A10's, chemical weapons and RPG's.

Interesting the statue shows a musket...Maybe that's a clue in interpretation of 'bear arms'.

The vast majority of Afghans want to be left in peace. They don't want the Taliban, the Pakistani's, the Americans , the British troops, or the other NATO contingents. So when he says they love the Americans, he's wrong, they just don't hate them; they simply dislike invaders in general, but don't hate Americans in particular.

Dang, you would have made a great serf.

I can hear it now, "do you have any more cool-aide Mr Jones"', "since we've already cut our balls off, what can be so bad about eating a little pudding?", "c'mon guys, Brother Number 1 wants to see us down at the rice paddies", "sure Uncle Joe is taking our entire harvest and we have nothing for winter, but he says it's for the best"..


Trust the people, Yorkshire - and not the politicians whose only skills are typically getting into office and staying there.  Assume the US founding Fathers are somewhat wiser than Piers Morgan.

[Juan]

I think Yorkie is the reincarnation of George III.  Or, maybe he's Prince Charles.

[Sardondi]

And maybe that was the levelof the need that was envisaged. (which is perfectly understandable, seeing as neither Winchesters or modern semi/fully automatic wepons were around either); not four dozen or so that Alex Jones claims to own, or the hundreds of rounds of ammunition that can be purchased that can kill an elephant..Yeah, paranoia has no concept of 'excess'...  :

It's so special when we hear from our British cousins on what our forefathers really had in mind, and how we here should comport ourselves today...that is, if we want to be thought good little boys and girls worthy of Euro Love. The problem is the musket you would limit "arms" to was the M-16 of its day. The farmers and merchants and lawyers and layabouts...and let's not forget the paranoids who owned four or four-dozen or even more muskets...were armed just as well as His Majesty's troops of the 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers or the 52d Ox and Bucks or any of the other troops who marched out to Concord and Lexington to...I was going to say 'start a war on British subjects', but Major Pitcarin's orders were to do what on April 19, 1775? He and his troops were to use military force to seize arms and ammunition belonging to citizens. Kind of puts nice point to that statue of the Minuteman, who held his day's RPG.

Anyone who has ever even dipped into The Federalist Papers, much less the correspondence and speeches of the American forefathers knows without doubt they feared the concentration of too much power in government. Not, "would keep an eye on"; not, "were leery of": they feared government power, because they had seen what it could do to a people.

A populace capable of defending itself from their government was what our forefathers envisaged. Tough for those who find it inconvenient today. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Trust the people, Yorkshire - and not the politicians whose only skills are typically getting into office and staying there.  Assume the US founding Fathers are somewhat wiser than Piers Morgan.

Then can I suggest you don't fucking vote them in? It really is that sumple. If you don't like any of the candidates that are putting their name forward to be elected, then propose, second and elect the person you do want. We had a badge that was worn by opposition voters after Thatcher got in in 79 "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her"... That's how democracy works, yoou have a selection of candidates,  or would you 'trust the people' and not have democracy and have anarchy instead?

[onan]

It's so special when we hear from our British cousins on what our forefathers really had in mind, and how we here should comport ourselves today...that is, if we want to be thought good little boys and girls worthy of Euro Love. The problem is the musket you would limit "arms" to was the M-16 of its day. The farmers and merchants and lawyers and layabouts...and let's not forget the paranoids who owned four or four-dozen or even more muskets...were armed just as well as His Majesty's troops of the 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers or the 52d Ox and Bucks or any of the other troops who marched out to Concord and Lexington to...I was going to say 'start a war on British subjects', but Major Pitcarin's orders were to do what on April 19, 1775? He and his troops were to use military force to seize arms and ammunition belonging to citizens. Kind of puts nice point to that statue of the Minuteman, who held his day's RPG.

Anyone who has ever even dipped into The Federalist Papers, much less the correspondence and speeches of the American forefathers knows without doubt they feared the concentration of too much power in government. Not, "would keep an eye on"; not, "were leery of": they feared government power, because they had seen what it could do to a people.

A populace capable of defending itself from their government was what our forefathers envisaged. Tough for those who find it inconvenient today.

There is nothing wrong with a counter view of anything, including our history.


Muskets may have been equal in fire power to the army of that period, are you suggesting that we should have ground to air missiles available to the public?


No matter how brilliant our founding leaders were they had no comprehension of a weapon that could kill hundreds in less than a second. Nor would they want that kind of fire power available to every citizen. Instead of fighting one tyrant we would be fighting one or two in every county.

We are not the same country we were during the war of independence and to think the same laws are satisfactory for today's nation is blissful ignorance.

[Yorkshire pud]

A populace capable of defending itself from their government was what our forefathers envisaged. Tough for those who find it inconvenient today.

Pssst...it's 2013, not 1775... Check your calender. It's YOUR government. Your population voted them in, ergo, it's your responsibility. Is the default postion in certain quarters of the US electorate, that whoever is elected to office (be it the second term or elected instead of the sitting incumbent), the result is unacceptable and ergo all provision must be made to defend yourself against the government...erm that were elected by the electorate who put them there..Now I'm not a wiz at arithmetic, but that seems to me that the minority have de facto declared an unwritten civil war on the majority of the electorate, because they refuse to accept the democratic decision. And yet certain 'third world' countries' populations are denounced as uncivilised because they can't accept a democratic decision? You couldn't make it up.. 

[Sardondi]

Pssst...it's 2013, not 1775... Check your calender. It's YOUR government. Your population voted them in, ergo, it's your responsibility. Is the default postion in certain quarters of the US electorate, that whoever is elected to office (be it the second term or elected instead of the sitting incumbent), the result is unacceptable and ergo all provision must be made to defend yourself against the government...erm that were elected by the electorate who put them there..Now I'm not a wiz at arithmetic, but that seems to me that the minority have de facto declared an unwritten civil war on the majority of the electorate, because they refuse to accept the democratic decision. And yet certain 'third world' countries' populations are denounced as uncivilised because they can't accept a democratic decision? You couldn't make it up.. 

Thank you for an excellent example of the " 'Shut up', he explained" argument. So we should shut up and allow ourselves to be ruled by "executive orders" and blatantly illegal administrative regulations designed to avoid Congressional action and review?? Shut up and just go along with what a few million more cast their ballot for - because that's what the left has always done, eh, shut up and kept quiet?

What an utter lie. What total, contemptible bullshit. For 8 miserable years the left "shut up" so much that death threats and fantasies against a sitting US President were a daily occurrence in mainstream Democrat boards. But today it's different somehow? "Shut up, you lost?" (And I guess you mean that if you lose the Presidency that all dissent ceases, right?)

But then that was then wasn't it? Funny how that "free speech" thing works for so much of the left. Today you hate it. But more than that, you're trying to stamp it out with your standard Alinskyist tactics of using marginalization and eliminationist rhetoric. And it is here we see the left's true colors - none of the "free speech for everyone", and "dissent is an American value!" stuff you were so proud to spout less than a decade ago. Now it's "Shut up, you lost", eh? As if that were even true, and as if ever in the history of America it had been urged by anyone. But today we see the left likes to swing a great big no-dissent-allowed stick, as we have an Executive Branch unlike any it our history, which is unembarrassed to float shockingly illegal proposals to implement policies it knows it could never get passed into law. 

Those of you with a conscience know exactly what I mean. You've seen it, this attitude of "We can ignore anything we want to now". The media don't even bother to pretend any more that they're objective: they're the house organ, and everyone knows it. You would scream bloody murder at the outrage of it, but we get told, "Shut up". And no one speaks up. Shame on you.

[PB the Deplorable]

Then can I suggest you don't fucking vote them in? It really is that sumple. If you don't like any of the candidates that are putting their name forward to be elected, then propose, second and elect the person you do want. We had a badge that was worn by opposition voters after Thatcher got in in 79 "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for her"... That's how democracy works, yoou have a selection of candidates,  or would you 'trust the people' and not have democracy and have anarchy instead?

The problem isn't as much who gets elected as it is the size of government and it's growth trajectory.  For the most part, the only people trying to get into office are either those that just want the power to srtat ruling over the rest of us, or people who are naive enough to think 'government' and 'more money' are the answers to everything.

What the government should be doing at the Federal level is spelled out in the Constitution itself.  They are waay past that now - to the point we now have a National Government instead of a true Federal one.  What the state and local governments should be doing is police and fire, roads, parks, infrastructure, the things we NEED to do collectively, nothing more.

But that's all boring stuff - once in office, who wants to spend their time doing that.  It's much more fulfilling to begin creating little feifdoms, build bureaucracies, hamstring the rest of us with a never ending stream of petty rules based on someones pet ideas or on trying to look like they are doing 'something' in response to some issue, go out looking for ever more 'unmet needs', figure out ways to get ever more taxes out of us, demagogue and preen in front of cameras - and above all else, slickly ensure continued employment as a public decision maker, no matter the cost or consequence to everyone else.

Some of us are working on getting better people into office, but we have the 'Progressive' Democrat Party, the Republican Establishment, and Big Media against us.  And too many otherwise capable people now dependant on government handouts.

[PB the Deplorable]

... So we should shut up and allow ourselves to be ruled by "executive orders" and blatantly illegal administrative regulations designed to avoid Congressional action and review??...

Next time someone accuses Barrack Obama of acting like a Third World Dictator, kindly hold off on the accusations of 'racism', and recall this week when he threatened to change the gun laws through an Executive Order rather than through a bill debated and passed by Congress. 

Then think about all the other one-party Chicago style thuggy actions he's taken.  What a disgrace he is.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Maybe that's because Winchester lever-actions weren't available at the local Bass Pro during that time.  :

'...... the right of the people to keep and bear 'nuclear arms' shall not be infringed......"

[Robyrolfo]

WTF is this nonsense?  Coast to Coast is NOT right wing wacko radio.  Why are they harping on about this crap?  This is NOT what C2C is about... far from it.   What a joke.

They need to pull this right wing asshole off the air ASAP.   He simply isn't intelligent and open minded enough to host the show.

[Designx]

WTF is this nonsense?  Coast to Coast is NOT right wing wacko radio.  Why are they harping on about this crap?  This is NOT what C2C is about... far from it.   What a joke.

They need to pull this right wing asshole off the air ASAP.   He simply isn't intelligent and open minded enough to host the show.

I agree - the whole week is a political extreme gloom & doom - there's enough of this on the radio i.e. Glen Beck; Michael Savage.

[mombird3]

This show on Wed. was the worst crap I have ever heard. Did you hear Wells say they now check people for dental decay and random searches? This makes me sick. Who listens to this? It is worse than the other shows. They are trying to sound like Savage. But Savage tells it much better. We do not need this stuff. Life is hard as it is.

[MTB]

Maybe it's all a Premiere Radio psyops scheme to get us to be glad when Noory returns.

[somatichypermutation]

John b Wells need a new line of work, I hear driving a truck - alone, with your paranoid thoughts - works well for his type.

[Robyrolfo]

Seriously, this is absolutely horrible.  Get rid of him now!

[Yorkshire pud]

Next time someone accuses Barrack Obama of acting like a Third World Dictator,

That would be a far right third world dictator then? Or are the events of the recent past in Mozambique and the Dominican Republic not worthy of mention? Oh, and the current 'political' make ups of Sudan and Ethiopia too..To name but four.

kindly hold off on the accusations of 'racism', and recall this week when he threatened to change the gun laws through an Executive Order rather than through a bill debated and passed by Congress. 

You mentioned racism; I simply pointed out the mis match of complaining about the incumbant government (Any government left or right) but not taking steps too do anything about it.

Then think about all the other one-party Chicago style thuggy actions he's taken.  What a disgrace he is.

He's really under your skin isn't he? Still, only four years to go...then YOU can stand as president; isn't that the deal? Any US citizen can stand as president? Hell, if you had policies that would appeal to the vast majority of the electorate it would be a landslide. Yes I know that's stating the obvious but it's true.

[PB the Deplorable]

That would be a far right third world dictator then? ...

I was speaking in reference to his tactics and how he operates, not policy

... You mentioned racism; I simply pointed out the mis match of complaining about the incumbant government (Any government left or right) but not taking steps too do anything about it...
 

I did not mean to include you in that.  Using the race card is a favorite tactic here in the US.

... He's really under your skin isn't he? Still, only four years to go...then YOU can stand as president; isn't that the deal? Any US citizen can stand as president? Hell, if you had policies that would appeal to the vast majority of the electorate it would be a landslide. Yes I know that's stating the obvious but it's true.

In addition to his naivete and lack of experience or accomplishments, his policies are unsound, his instincts are terrible, his cronies are dubious.  He sure is great at reading a teleprompter and projecting a cool calmness, though.

As far as policies appealing to the electorate, it's a bit more than that.  Taken item by item, I doubt 50% of Americans agree with Obama on very much.  Yet there he is.  Never underestimate the power demagoguery, the influence of a committed Media, or the lure of government handouts.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thank you for an excellent example of the " 'Shut up', he explained" argument. So we should shut up and allow ourselves to be ruled by "executive orders" and blatantly illegal administrative regulations designed to avoid Congressional action and review?? Shut up and just go along with what a few million more cast their ballot for - because that's what the left has always done, eh, shut up and kept quiet?

Thanks for taking what I said out of context; but no matter...I didn't say shut up (Because that's what free speech is all about), I said that democracy works on a voting principle, be it a simple win/lose, or in the case of other democracies (Including the present UK Parliament) coalitions. Now, the day after the election, there are the usual recriminations and introspections over what went wrong from the losing parties, but (other than the more volatile countries) it settles down and the incoming government get on with trying to undo the crap the previous administration did, capitalise on the good stuff, bring in their own ideas, set their own budget, and then mess up in their own unique way...until next time. The population thrive on the good things, and complain against the bad, but what doesn't happen is the collective opposition don't get it in their heads that the incumbent government will exterminate them. It's all the more laughable that the media is cited as the mouthpiece of the left! Rupert Murdoch is one the planets biggest media owners, are you seriously suggesting that Fox is left wing? That the UK's Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Express, Times are owned by left wing owners?

Well the Telegraph is owned by the Barclay brothers, two reclusive twins who live on a remote island in the English Channel (Tax exiles) and have systematically engaged in suppressing criticism of their bullying tactics on that and the adjoining island.

The Mail? Well that is owned by Lord Rothermere and his ancestors since 1896...and indeed to reinforce it's right wing credentials his ancestor said in 1934:

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year.

The present editor is a vile individual, and in order to keep his job maintains the political stance of his employer. However this wholesome conservative position sadly doesn't extend to the online version where regularly, pubescent girls (usually the daughters of the 'celebrities' they fawn on and destroy in equal measure) are surreptitiously photographed on family holidays, with captions such as 'Hasn't she grown up?' and 'Only 14,but long legged and curvy'... I only know this because of the complaints that have been voiced against the practice in the wider arena. Oh, and Rothermere said at the Leveson enquiry he'd had regular meetings with Cameron, describing how he was implored to support the Conservative party.. It's supreme irony that Tony Blair (Ostensibly left of centre-yeah Tony!)  was in his early days supported by the Mail, because he had right wing credentials.. Oh, Rothermere doesn't contribute in any way to the exchequer in the UK, he is a tax exile and has been for decades, but feels he's in a position to use his publications to help steer political will, although he has no moral credentials for doing so.

The Sun and Times is owned by Murdoch..enough said.

The Express is owned by a man called Richard Desmond..amongst his little ventures he also peddles porn via television, internet and various magazines. Which is ironic really considering the the very anti porn stance the Daily Express takes..in fact it takes a very anti anything to do with sex..It would probably fit in with Christian fundamentalists, right up until they discovered Desmonds other interests.

What an utter lie. What total, contemptible bullshit. For 8 miserable years the left "shut up" so much that death threats and fantasies against a sitting US President were a daily occurrence in mainstream Democrat boards. But today it's different somehow? "Shut up, you lost?" (And I guess you mean that if you lose the Presidency that all dissent ceases, right?)

No...but then you know I didn't say that. I in fact posed this question:

Is the default postion in certain quarters of the US electorate, that whoever is elected to office (be it the second term or elected instead of the sitting incumbent), the result is unacceptable and ergo all provision must be made to defend yourself against the government?

Well? Is it the position taken?

But then that was then wasn't it? Funny how that "free speech" thing works for so much of the left. Today you hate it. But more than that, you're trying to stamp it out with your standard Alinskyist tactics of using marginalization and eliminationist rhetoric. And it is here we see the left's true colors - none of the "free speech for everyone", and "dissent is an American value!" stuff you were so proud to spout less than a decade ago. Now it's "Shut up, you lost", eh? As if that were even true, and as if ever in the history of America it had been urged by anyone. But today we see the left likes to swing a great big no-dissent-allowed stick, as we have an Executive Branch unlike any it our history, which is unembarrassed to float shockingly illegal proposals to implement policies it knows it could never get passed into law. 

I think you'll find the right has an equally large (in many cases bigger) stick to quell dissent; but again I'm not on the left nor am I proposing the quelling of dissent..I'm putting forward the proposition that it isn't 1775 and paranoia about some imminent governmental war against it's own population is just that; paranoia. I know it's something Alex Jones has spouted on about over many years, well until his next commercial opportunity comes along..next year it might be triffids coming in on a giant ice sheet making land fall in SF, imagine the DVD's he could offload on that one? Question; would you be comfortable having Alex Jones next door to you? I know Piers Morgan is a cunt, but at least you'd have a chance to get a word in, and wouldn't run the risk of being shot simply because of a difference of opinion.

[Yorkshire pud]

As far as policies appealing to the electorate, it's a bit more than that.  Taken item by item, I doubt 50% of Americans agree with Obama on very much.

You can extrapolate that to virtually any president/prime minister. Not all, because some do have 99% support, such as the late Saddam Hussain, I wonder what happened to him? Such a great statesman, entertained so many Western politicians, movers and shakers; boy could he throw a party.

Fewer people (in percentage) voted for Tony Blair in his last election than on Big Brother here in the UK.. Ergo more voted against his party than voted for him; that is the unfortunate side effect of a multi party democracy.

Yet there he is.  Never underestimate the power demagoguery, the influence of a committed Media, or the lure of government handouts.

I agree; but what are you suggesting as an alternative?