1,100 GREEN BERETS SET RECORD STRAIGHT ON GUNS

‘AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic’

Published: 1 hour ago

 by BOB UNRUH

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

Politicians, pundits and private citizens have been sounding off on Barack Obama’s new push for gun bans, but what do the professionals whose job it is to use guns in the protection of their nation, their fellow countrymen and themselves say?

Watch out.

An open letter has been posted on the Professional Soldiers blog that has been signed as of this writing by more than 1,100 current and former U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers, the Green Berets.

The soldiers say first it’s important to define the issue and set the record straight.

“The terms ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ are often confused,” they say. “According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, ‘Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assaults rifles.’”

The Green Berets, who use the weapons, point out the M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle.”

“The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The ‘AR’ in its name does not stand for ‘Assault Rifle’ – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!”

Likewise, they say, a ban on “high-capacity” magazines would be irrelevant, pointing to the shooting by Eric Harris at Columbine High School as proof. The letter explains that when the first weapons ban was adopted in 1994, manufacturers retooled their products to meet the requirements of the law.

“One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.”

And, underlying the issue, the letter says, is the Constitution’s assurance of protection for the “sacrosanct” right of self-defense.

“Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” they say..

They write that it is easy to blame guns, but weapons aren’t really the problem. Civilized society already proves it, they contend.

“We cite the experience in Great Britain,” they write. In 1987 was the Hungerford massacre that killed 18, and the government followed with a 1988 law banning semi-automatic guns. But eight years later, a “disturbed” man murdered 16 children and a teacher the Dunblane school. Immediately the law was amended to ban “all private ownership of handguns.”

Somehow, criminals apparently didn’t get the message, the letter suggests.

“Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35 percent over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes… Gun related homicides were up 32 percent over the same period. … Gun related crime had increased 65 percent since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world,” the letter says.

“In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9 percent from the 2005 high,” the letter says, citing FBI statistics.

Since gun bans don’t really impact violence, what is the issue at hand?

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny,” the Green Berets say.

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the Second Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

But school shootings are horrible and need to be addressed, they write.

“First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem.”

The military veterans say local schools should make their own decisions and plans.

“Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.”

Further, those individuals with diagnosed conditions that impact their ability to make decisions can be addressed with programs of treatment.

“In each of these mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable,” the Green Berets says

Firearms safety programs in schools could help, and a repeal of laws making them gun-free zones should be considered by local officials.

Also, the violence in video games needs to be addressed.

“”War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said, ‘War is hell!’ Leave war to the professionals,’” the letter says

“This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set,” they write.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/1100-green-berets-set-record-straight-on-guns/#UcBXsUAiBIqef8De.99 

 

Never Let a Dead Child Go to Waste

By William A. Levinson

 

Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo, and their cohorts followed Rahm Emanuel‘s advice to “never let a good crisis go to waste” when they used the Sandy Hook shooting to renew their assault on the Bill of Rights. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell added, in effect, that one should never let a dead childgo to waste if one can exploit him or her for political gain.

“…the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side.”

This is difficult, if not impossible, to explain away. Suppose instead that an armed teacher or staff member had stopped Adam Lanza after two murders the way Pearl High Assistant Principal Joel Myrick stopped would-be mass murderer Luke Woodham. A case study for The American Rifleman’s Armed Citizen feature is not what Dianne Feinstein, Ed Rendell, and their cohorts need in order to eliminate the Second Amendment a piece at a time. They need a mass murder that is “so horrific” that it will manipulate the public, and legislatures like New York’s, into acting before they have time to think. Their modus operandi is to exploit grief, shock, and outrage for political gain the way itinerant rainmakers once exploited the plight of drought-plagued farmers, and quacks and charlatans peddle miracle cures to desperate cancer patients.*

Ed Rendell is not the only anti-Second Amendment leader who has done this. As stated by Joshua Horowitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,

A historic opportunity now lies before us to curb the gun violence destroying our families and communities. For the sake of future generations, let us hope our elected officials seize it.

Horowitz at least had the decency to add, “Nothing can right the terrible tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn. on Friday,” but this does not change the fact that he also sees this crime as an opportunity to manipulate people’s emotions.

To this, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey added, “If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up because I don’t know what else will.” He added that so-called “assault weapons” are not suitable for hunting, which is a deliberately dishonest statement about the Second Amendment. The same goes for Andrew Cuomo’s statement that you don’t need ten bullets to kill a deer. He is right; a good hunter won’t take the shot if he can’t kill the deer with one bullet. The Second Amendment does not, however, guarantee the right to hunt deer or indeed anything else. There is, in fact, no Constitutional impediment whatsoever to a ban on all hunting and fishing. What the Bill of Rights guarantees is the right to defend oneself against violent human beings.

Joseph Goebbels said of this kind of propaganda that “Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect.” Goebbels’ and Hitler’s success with this approach proved that it can be decisively effective, but there is a strong caveat. When the natives figure out that the Great White God is not a god, and that his beads and trinkets are not magic, he usually comes to a bad end. The instant people wake up to the fact that you are lying to them and manipulating them, they will turn on you with no less enthusiasm than that with which they once followed you. When the enemy cites openly the mass murder of children and teachers as an opportunity to pursue an agenda, this will happen very quickly.

The destruction of the Million Mom March in 2000 exemplifies this principle. The group solicited donations, volunteer time, and corporate contributions under the premise that it was working for “gun safety,” and particularly to protect children from “gun violence.” When it became apparent that the group was using the money to promote House candidates on its Web site, while it threatened pro-Second Amendment candidates with defeat, its supporters distanced themselves from it very quickly. As an example,

(CNSNews.com) – The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is distancing itself from the so-called ‘Million Mom March’ because of the gun control group’s stated intention of supporting political candidates.

…Church officials also said they were not aware that MMM organizers planned to become politically active regarding candidates for office, and would have preferred knowing the organization’s plans before the event.

The enemies of the Bill of Rights have again chosen to use children as human shields, but our side must do more than merely call them out for this despicable propaganda tactic. We must also show why the other side cannot appeal to logic and reason.

Why They Must Appeal to Emotion; The Facts are Against Them

Honest human beings are almost universally receptive to facts. The statement that two and two make four is nonpartisan as well as inarguable, and Rudyard Kipling pointed this out in “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.” Thomas Sowell explained very clearly,

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The hard facts are that gun control in Australia and the United Kingdom has done nothing to reduce violent crime, and has probably increased it. The hard facts are that the cities with the toughest gun control laws — Chicago, Washington DC, and New York — are far more dangerous than cities and states in which people can carry guns openly. The American people are not interested in snake oil and quackery, which is why Feinstein & Co. must deal in emotional propaganda as well as outright falsehoods.

Turn the Monster on its Creators

Manipulative propaganda backfires horribly the instant people recognize the manipulation in question. The anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March went down hard for this very reason. The current enemies of the Bill of Rights will suffer a similarly devastating backlash the instant people recognize what is being done to them, and “Never let a dead child go to waste” is an easy way to facilitate this recognition.

* “Rainmaker” by the rock group Kansas is an outstanding flash (210 word) horror story in which the protagonist gets far more than he bargained for.

William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/never_let_a_dead_child_go_to_waste.html#ixzz2JbxEkfAm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Rep. Upton to Newsmax: Obama Must OK Keystone Pipeline

 

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 This is a Reblogged from www.newsmax.com.

 Posted by Jim Meyers and John Bachman

 

Rep. Fred Upton, influential chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, tells Newsmax that the “question of the day” is why the Obama administration still hasn’t approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Michigan Republican also says the pipeline would be a major step in creating an “energy independent North America.”
The pipeline would transport oil produced by hydraulic fracturing in Alberta, Canada, to several points in the United States and create thousands of jobs. But President Obama rejected an application for the pipeline in January 2012, largely over environmental concerns in Nebraska.

Now Nebraska has approved a new route across the state, easing some of the fears of environmentalists.
Story continues below the video.

Rep. Upton

Asked if he is seeing any signs that the White House might now approve the new route, Rep. Upton — first elected in 1986 — tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview on Wednesday: “We haven’t yet.“[Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton said some time ago they thought they had all the information to be able to make a decision, thought they would be able to make it certainly well before the end of last year.

“The Congress, in fact, is on record having a two-to-one majority in the House [for the pipeline]. We had 56, 57 votes in the Senate. We expect that that’s about the same level of support as you look at the new members that are here now.

“You’ll remember that it was about a year ago that the president in a national address said he would do whatever it takes to create American jobs. This is 20,000 new American jobs. And for the Canadians, they’re going to be producing the oil from the oil sands no matter what. They’re going to build a pipeline west to Vancouver and then off to China” if the United States doesn’t approve the pipeline.“If this pipeline is stopped coming through the plains states, there’s actually some discussion about building a pipeline all the way east through Canada to the Atlantic and then putting it on a boat and shipping it to the refineries down in New Orleans and Texas that way, adding to the cost of fuel.“It’s safer to send it in a pipeline.

“Canada is our friend. They’re trying to help us. We shouldn’t be turning our back on that friendship.

“We know for a fact that the Chinese are all over the place up in Alberta. They would love for the United States to say no.
“We have more than a million miles of pipelines already across the United States. A lot of them already cross into Canada. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be built here.”

In light of the bipartisan letter 146 House members have sent to Obama urging immediate approval of construction on the pipeline, Upton was asked what reason Obama can offer for refusing to approve the project.

“That’s the question of the day,” he responds. “The State Department and the different administration authorities have been studying this for literally three or four years. The reason to say no really isn’t there, other than to say we don’t want oil from oil sands from our best friend the Canadians.

“Remember, Canada’s going to do this no matter what. They’re going to be producing from about one million barrels a day today to four million barrels a day by the end of the decade. It’s going someplace. Isn’t better that it come to the United States? That we create the jobs here? That we have some certainty in terms of volume from North America, rather than relying on Venezuela or someplace else?”Asked about the top energy priorities for the country, Upton tells Newsmax: “We really want an energy independent North America. Looking at these vast resources now that we’ve been able to discover in the United States, it’s not worth nearly as much if we don’t have a means to get it out of the earth. We need more drilling.

“A third of our oil comes from the Gulf. About 10 to 15 percent comes from Alaska. We need the Canadian input here as well in terms of oil resources.
“Right now, we just need a green light by this administration on Keystone. They need to say yes, we’ll build a pipe here, we’ll create the 20-something thousand jobs.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Upton-keystone-pipeline/2013/01/30/id/488177#ixzz2JVhGWaaM

CURL: Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

By Joseph Curl

 

•  

  President Obama talks about taxes on Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, at the … more >

 

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Should Congressional Republicans let the “sequesters” take effect in order to force President Obama to make substantial spending cuts?

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.

“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.

“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”

Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.

“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”

The Twittersphere was even funnier.

“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”

But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.

How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”

The looks on their faces will be priceless.

*bull; Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/?page=2#ixzz2JVdjaY37
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

TROOPS BULLDOZE HOMES, LEAVE THOUSANDS HOMELESS

Soldiers wearing U.N. logos evict whole towns in land grab

 

By Alex Newman

Thousands of poor Brazilian families are living in wretched conditions at make-shift refugee camps after being evicted from their homes at gunpoint by federal forces, some of whom were sporting United Nations logos, according to sources.

 

The massive operation, which left an estimated 7,500 or more people, including thousands of children, homeless was justified by authorities under the guise of creating an Indian reservation.

Towns literally have been wiped off the map, and no compensation was offered to the victims. About 400,000 acres of land were expropriated in the latest operation.

Residents in the Siua-Missu area in the state of Mato Grosso battled heavily armed federal police and military forces for weeks using sticks, rocks, Molotov cocktails and other crude weapons.

In the end, however, the powerful national government forces were overwhelming.

Virtually all of the residents have now been displaced, living in squalor, packed into school gymnasiums in nearby towns. Others are living on charity under plastic tarps propped up with sticks with no clean water or sewage services.

Leaders of the feeble resistance, meanwhile, are being hunted down by authorities for punishment.

It was in 1993, shortly after the first United Nations summit on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro, when the scheme was proposed. The Brazilian government’s executive branch decreed that the land in question belonged to Indians.

“These areas are marked off with rushed studies by leftist anthropologists, ideological and hardly scientific,” Fernando Furquim with the Movement for Peace in the Countryside, a non-profit organization that supports private property rights, told WND.

“The conflicts between the productive sector and Indians are assuming greater proportions,” he added. “Countless non-governmental organizations have appeared, many from abroad, to involve themselves in the question.”

Brazilian officials, meanwhile, sent WND an error-riddled statement containing claims that victims were not entitled to compensation but that some would be re-settled elsewhere if they qualified under the “agrarian reform” program.

Authorities also told WND that the U.N. was not involved in the eviction efforts but that the organization’s logos were on the military equipment and personnel because they had recently returned from “peace-keeping” abroad.

In Suia-Missu, legal battles ensued after the executive decree as property owners with valid deeds to their land fought back. Many of the residents have lived in the area for decades, and some were born there.

Their properties were mostly purchased as larger farms in the area and sold off in pieces in recent decades. Some were inherited from relatives.

The Brazilian courts eventually ruled that the forced evictions could proceed, so in November, residents were given 30 days to vacate their land.

Most refused to leave, but heavily armed Brazilian troops and federal police were too powerful for the poor farmers in the area to resist.

“The evicted victims are now living at schools in Alto da Boa Vista and camps, with some being sheltered by relatives,” Naves Bispo, a local resident and victim of the land-grab scheme, told WND, adding that the situation was dire and deteriorating.

“None of the people were relocated by the government, despite the government’s lies,” he noted. “There never existed a plan for these people, there was just an expulsion: brief, brutal and grotesque.”

Like other victims and analysts who spoke with WND, Bispo was unsure about why Brazilian authorities had decided to create an Indian reservation on land that was never occupied by Indians and was already lawfully owned.

Official documents obtained by WND show that in the 1970s, the National Indian Foundation, part of the Brazilian Justice Ministry, twice confirmed that Indians had never lived on the land in question.

“I know and feel that we are once again in a dictatorial state run by followers of Fidel, of Mao, of Che,” Bispo continued, pointing to the ruling Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT) and its well-documented links to tyrannical regimes in the region.

“This is terror against the poor, a strongly surging plague, very organized, an affront to democracy in the Americas,” he added. “I lost my land, my work area, but I will never lose my ideals.”

Residents resist

While the press was barred from documenting much of the battle, local news reports showed the true extent of the human tragedy. Many critics have said it constitutes forced relocation, a crime against humanity under international agreements.

Gas station owner Arnaldo da Costa, reportedly the first person to be notified of the evictions, lamented the situation in a TV interview.

“This is the worst day of my life, the worst in my 53 years,” he said. “I told the guy to find a place for us, show me where we’re supposed to go.”

Another man interviewed for the same segment started his grocery store 30 years ago and was set to lose his life’s work if forced to leave.

Meanwhile, authorities would not even let farmers pick their own crops, a young student told the interviewer.

“We planted over 100 acres of rice that they won’t let us harvest, we wasted 90,000 Brazilian reals ($45,000), and they simply will not let us harvest it,” she said, crying. “Sad, very sad, sad, lots of anguish, lots of suffering.”

Some residents, though, were defiant.

“I am going to stay here until I die,” Eliezer Rocha told a TV news crew. “I prefer to be killed by a bullet than to die of a broken heart later without a place to live, without a place to work.”

The sentiment was widespread as poverty-stricken locals, on the verge of losing their only means of subsistence and virtually all of their property, tried to keep federal forces at bay with improvised weapons and mass demonstrations.

Some residents burned Brazilian flags while others organized patrols, in vain, to chase the police and military away.

Local politicians, state lawmakers and even federal members of the Brazilian Congress spoke out as well.

“Ten people were injured in this clash,” Brazilian Sen. Jayme Campos from Mato Grosso was quoted as saying in Brazilian media reports after one of the many battles that raged between residents and federal troops.

“Any and all aggression by government forces will correspond inevitably with a violent reaction from the community,” he said.

Drawing attention to the thousands of people being forcibly evicted with no place to go, Campos said they were doing nothing but waging “a desperate fight to maintain the achievements of their entire life’s work, sweat, and sacrifices.”

To defuse the situation and prevent deaths, the senator called for a temporary suspension of the evictions and a change in the Constitution that would allow lawmakers to have some control over the executive branch’s currently unilateral establishment of “Indian lands” wherever it chooses.

The “extreme measures” being pursued by authorities, he said, were inappropriate.

“These rural farmers are willing to do anything: to kill and be killed,” Sen. Campos observed. “A tragedy can happen at any moment.”

His pleas, along with those of fellow lawmakers, fell on deaf ears.

All over

By Jan. 18, Brazilian authorities claimed that the entire area had been “cleared.”

Many of the structures – homes, churches, schools, a hospital, playgrounds, farms and more – were already bulldozed. The rest will be razed soon.

“This is a real shame what is going on here,” local property owner Paulo Gonçalves, whose land was also expropriated, told WND in a phone interview. “A great injustice is being committed against these people. They have nowhere to go, no plan.”

Another local resident, who did not respond to a request for permission to use his name by press time, told a similar story.

“My father had 2,000 hectares in the region and lost everything,” the young man told WND. “He had six employees who worked directly or indirectly on the farm, and today they are living on charity and almost suffering from hunger and have had not any help from the federal government.”

Local media reports showed tearful residents telling reporters their whole world had come crashing down in an instant.

“We’re looking for a place to go, I still don’t know. Everybody left here without knowing where they were going to go,” Juvenil Moreira, a local farmer, said as tears ran down his face.

“It wasn’t voluntary. They came and threatened us. The feds already came in my house two times and threatened me, saying that if I didn’t leave, they were going to confiscate all of my possessions,” he added. “I told them I didn’t have anywhere to go but they don’t want to hear it.”

“There hasn’t been a single person who has been re-settled by government agencies –not a single person,” Moreira explained, contradicting government claims that it would assist certain small farmers as part of its “agrarian reform” policy.

Another local farmer, Mamede Jordao, said a federal officer had threatened to take him in a helicopter and throw him out if he continued to speak out against the evictions.

The communities’ were also forced to leave all of their dead behind in graveyards that includes plots decades old.

Combined, residents of the area also owned hundreds of thousands of cows. Now they have nowhere to put them.

Much livestock was left behind, too, as locals tried to save whatever animals – dogs, cats, chickens – that they could take with them to their new refugee camp “homes.”

Charity

Some help has arrived.

Christian preachers from hundreds of miles away have been gathering tons of food and assistance from their congregations to ship to the displaced victims.

Concerned citizens throughout the region have been donating, too. And towns in the area have tried their best to help shelter as many families as possible with the few resources available to them.

At least one local businessman has also promised to donate some land so people can rebuild their homes and try to eke out a meager living from the soil once again.

One of the town people found temporary refuge in Alto da Boa Vista, where Mayor Nezip Domingues promised to help despite his people’s lack of resources.

He thanked all of the concerned citizens in the region who sent assistance.

“In truth, if it was not for the actions that these groups and society are taking – they are so moved by the situation in Siua Missu – we don’t know what we would have done,” Domingues said in a TV interview.

“Our municipality does not have the resources to attend to these necessities, so we’re thankful from our hearts for everybody who has helped these families,” he added.

Sources told WND that the people would be eternally grateful to God and to the pastors and congregations for the help being provided by Christians in the region.

However, the refugees also feel a sense of humiliation. Once independent, they now must depend on donations just to feed their own children.

Hope

Locals are still petitioning the government to undo the relocation, which they say has shattered thousands of lives, by returning the land and offering compensation for the loss of their houses.

A few still cling to a small ray of hope, thinking God may intervene or that the federal government will realize the error of its ways.

“There’s a small ray of hope, but it exists,” farmer Romão Flor told TV Araguaia in an interview after detailing the miserable living conditions evicted residents are suffering.

“However, the government is very strong, the Indian agency is very strong, the pressure from foreign interests is very strong, and the NGOs are very strong,” he said.

“It won’t be easy.”

Others, however, have all but given up after seeing what remains of their former hardscrabble towns and homes.

“I just got back from there, to see what had become of [the town of] Posto da Mata. It’s over,” sobbed a young mother and small farmer named Maria da Costa from her new “home” in a school gym, shared by eight other families. She broke down into tears before finishing her thought.

An elderly woman next to her, also crying, added: “They destroyed our people. Our whole world is destroyed.”

The lands

Brazilian officials told WND that the land in question had traditionally been occupied by the Xavante Indian tribe, which was expelled from nearby areas in the 1960s by government forces so settlers could move in.

However, numerous documents obtained by WND, and testimony from Xavante Indians, show that the tribe never occupied the land in question.

One Xavante Indian, for example, speaking at a local rally, blasted FUNAI for seizing the lands, saying the agency was operating at the expense of Indians and expropriating property in their name, but that it was not interested in the truth.

“They know that the Xavantes live in the cerrado (savannah-type region as opposed to forest) and that you’re living here,” the elderly Indian exclaimed.

“Now, help,” he continued, pointing his finger in the faces of some government officials at the gathering. “Give back everything you’ve stolen from the Indians and from the whole human race.”

Turning to the crowd again, he concluded: “We want to stay in our place, and you stay in yours.”

A Brazilian congressional delegation that visited the area quoted four Xavantes who all said the same thing: Their tribe has never lived in the area in question.

FUNAI itself admitted as much in the 1970s, twice, when asked by a large landowner for development purposes to certify that no Indians had ever lived there.

The tribe, which consists of around 14,000 members and already has about 3.5 million acres of land in Mato Grosso, was offered a better piece of land by the state government to avoid the forced evictions.

The real reasons

While it is remains unclear whether the U.N. was involved in the most recent forced eviction, the actions are in line with an international agreement on indigenous people, analysts say.

Local rancher Sebastian Prado told reporters that authorities were essentially running an extortion racket seeking millions of dollars in exchange for halting the land grab.

Upon speaking out, he was personally attacked by a top federal official.

“Mr. Sebastian Prado will be prosecuted for his lies against Secretary Paulo Maldos and will pay in the courts for his folly and irresponsibility,” Chief Minister Gilberto Carvalho with the General Secretariat of the President said in a press release.

Numerous other possible motives, however, have also been identified.

Among the most frequently cited: pressure from foreign NGOs like Greenpeace and religious persecution of the conservative and devout evangelical communities there by powerful Catholic “liberation theology” forces.

Victims and analysts who spoke with WND also identified as a probable cause the effort to advance socialism in Brazil and the broader region by eroding property rights and attacking independent citizens like farmers and ranchers, a process that is already well underway in Latin America led in large part by senior PT officials.

Finally, mega-corporations from abroad and foreign governments hoping to extract rare minerals have been cited as well.

United Nations agreement

A little-known U.N. agreement dubbed the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,” approved by the global body’s General Assembly in 2007, has been cited as a justification for expropriating the land.

While the U.S. originally rejected the controversial U.N. scheme, which purports to require the surrender of lands “traditionally” occupied by natives, President Obama signed on to it in late 2010.

Last year, in a move that drew a mix of ridicule and alarm from critics, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People James Anaya visited the U.S.

He concluded, among other points, that Mount Rushmore and vast tracts of land should be returned to Native Americans to put the U.S. government closer to compliance with the global agreement.

Several lawmakers contacted by WND were aware of the situation in Brazil, but none were willing to comment publicly about it at this time.

Still, analysts say that with the U.N. and authoritarian-minded governments seeking to exploit past injustices against indigenous people to advance their agenda, the danger will continue to grow – at least without international pressure on Brazilian authorities, who are desperately trying to polish their image on the global stage.

Socialism

The march of socialism in Latin America, meanwhile, continues, backed by foreign powers and largely under the radar of the Western media.

It is making great progress through the Foro de São Paulo (FSP), a shadowy socialist and communist political organization founded by former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva with the PT, Marxist despot Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas and others.

Marxist narco-terror groups like the FARC have also been intimately involved in the group, including by providing funding from the drug trade to advance the cause.

Today, political parties that are part of the FSP, such as the Brazilian PT, control most national governments in Latin America. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, for example, is a prominent participant, as are other, less-known socialist strongmen.

Current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a “former” communist guerrilla and revolutionary, is also playing an increasingly important in the network.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/troops-bulldoze-homes-leave-thousands-homeless/#IzvPbM32po3Fbflb.99

 

FEINSTEIN’S PLAN BANS ANY GUN WITH A ‘GRIP’?

Analyst says list ‘a smokescreen’ to conceal true intent of bill

Published: 4 hours ago

by BOB UNRUH

 

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓

A key gun law analyst who has published books on the issue of the Second Amendment and its rights and responsibilities for decades says the Feinstein gun ban bill is just exactly that, a gun ban bill.

Not, essentially, a plan to limit certain guns. Not a limit on the size of magazines. Not a plan for restrictions on those with certifiable mental instabilities, a ban on criminals’ access or a plan to encourage gun safety.

Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, “any semiautomatic firearm with uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a ‘pistol grip,’ would be banned.”

He explained, “That sounds like a limitation, but it is not. A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as ‘a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.’”

He said, “In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked! Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

Read the proposed bill here.

“The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that. Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.”

The bill, in fact, states, “‘Pistol grip’ means … any … characteristic that can function as a grip.”

That definition follows on the bill’s specific reference that a “pistol grip” is a banned component.

Make preparations, with a comprehensive guide to self-defense, “Armed Response.

Korwin wrote his first book, “The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide,” in 1989, and it now is in its 25th edition. He subsequently wrote or helped with nine more books on gun laws for several individual states, as well as federal guides to national laws and Supreme Court gun cases.

He maintains on his website a free directory to every gun law in the nation.

He told WND that the list of guns that Feinstein would ban is meaningless.

The definition, Korwin said, “invalidates her entire list of guns, and I’ve written 10 books on this topic, I know what I’m saying.”

He said while there is a grandfather clause for “old stuff,” the reality is that, “Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned.”

“Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal,” he said in his analysis. “Here’s the problem none of the ‘news’ reports have spotted.

“The list of guns doesn’t matter. Magazine size doesn’t matter. If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned. It’s very clever actually,” he said.

He also noted there are a number of significant omissions.

In Feinstein’s plan, “nothing addresses criminals – everything is aimed at innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong. … It is all ‘wrong because we say so,’ the worst kind of government abuse – crime by decree,” he said. “The critics appear to be right. This is not about gun control, it is purely about control. The bill simply removes the right to own property Americans currently own.”

He said there also is “nothing” that addresses people “who are nuts, borderline nuts, formerly nuts or no longer nuts and still perpetually banned from their rights.”

He noted there also is no mention of psychotropic drugs that “may cause psychotic episodes, suicidal tendencies, manic behavior, sudden death and various social and psychological disturbances” in the bill. A significant number of perpetrators in most of the mass shootings in recent years have been linked to some sort of drug activity.

 

And, he said, there is “nothing in her 122-page bill [that] deals with gun safety. No training, no marksmanship, nothing for teachers, no self-defense awareness, no public education, nothing for schools, everything the president has asked for to increase child safety is missing in her long list of guns she would remove from the hands of the innocent,” he said.

The bottom line is that her proposal is something Congress should fear, he said.

“Every aspect of this bill appears to be an infringement on the Bill Of Rights, with no legitimate justification. Congress cannot pass infringements by majority vote. That is forbidden, although the word ‘infringement’ itself is universally missing in ‘news’ reports, in case you haven’t noticed,” he said.

“Congress can’t just enact whatever they want by majority rule. If they could, we would not have government of limited delegated powers, the hallmark of freedom and The American Way. It must just be a typo, on page two, continuing for 121 pages.”

Feinstein has claimed she wants banned “sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of 120 specifically named firearms, certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/feinsteins-plan-bans-any-gun-with-a-grip/#C6Fb1aZrrswXQ42H.99

 

High School To Collect Students; Hair For Mandatory Drug Testing

January 30, 2013 11:21 AM

 

File photo of a classroom. (credit: KAZUHIRO NOGI/AFP/Getty Images)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (CBS St. Louis) — A Kansas City high school will begin collecting hair from students to conduct mandatory drug tests.

KHSB-TV reports that Rockhurst High School will start the random drug testing during the 2013-14 school year.

“Our point is, if we do encounter a student who has made some bad decisions with drugs or alcohol, we will be able to intervene, get the parents involved, get him help if necessary, and then help him get back on a path of better decision making, healthier choices for his life,” Rockhurst Principal Greg Harkness told the station.

The school will collect 60 strands of hair from the student and test for several types of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. If a student comes back with a positive drug test, that student will have 90 days to get drug-free. The station reports the file will be destroyed for a student who tests positive after graduation and colleges and universities will never know about the failed test.

Matthew Brocato, the school’s junior class president, told The Kansas City Star that the mandatory drug testing is not to punish students who fail.

“When you hear ‘drug testing,’ you think cops,” Brocato told the Star. “At first you’re taken aback. Is it for the better?”

File photo of a classroom. (credit: KAZUHIRO NOGI/AFP/Getty Images)

Officials decided to start drug testing during the next school year after a recent survey conducted to their students.

“What was most alarming for us is that when you asked our students if everyone else is doing it, they said, ‘Yes.’ But, in fact, they weren’t,” Harkness told KHSB. “It’s that perception I think among teenagers today that fuels the peer pressure – that there’s this idea that ‘Everyone is doing it, so I guess I have to do it myself.’”

Parents are also backing the school’s decision.

“We’ve had lots of conversations – that’s the thing I like most about it – it has opened up conversations around the dinner table with both my boys, and that’s been great for our family,”mother Tammy Privitera told the station.

The ACLU, though, believe school drug testing is a waste of time and money.

“Nothing prohibits it,” Doug Bonney, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, told the Star. “But it is a colossal waste of money.”

Private schools are allowed to test all students while public schools are restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

ATF’s Milwaukee sting operation marred by mistakes, failures

Michael Sears

David Salkin unknowingly rented his building at 1220 E. Meinecke Ave. to the ATF, which ran an undercover sting. Burglars broke into the business, ending the operation. Salkin says the ATF owes him $15,000 for damage and unpaid utility bills. The agency has refused to pay.

By John Diedrich and Raquel Rutledge of the Journal Sentinel

Jan. 29, 2013

Photo Gallery

• Mistakes mar ATF operation

Related Documents

Documents: ATF’s Fearless ATF’s Fearless Distributing operation

Click image to enlarge.

A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee’s Riverwest neighborhood, offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug paraphernalia.

Those working behind the counter, however, weren’t interested in selling anything.

They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.

But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.

When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.

And the agency remains locked in a battle with the building’s owner, who says he is owed about $15,000 because of utility bills, holes in the walls, broken doors and damage from an overflowing toilet.

The sting resulted in charges being filed against about 30 people, most for low-level drug sales and gun possession counts. But agents had the wrong person in at least three cases. In one, they charged a man who was in prison – as a result of an earlier ATF case – at the time agents said he was selling drugs to them.

Other cases reveal that the agency’s operation was paying such high prices that some defendants bought guns from stores such as Gander Mountain and sold them to the agents for a quick profit. The mistakes by agents are troubling and suggest a lack of planning and oversight, according to veterans of the ATF, who learned about the operation from the Journal Sentinel. The newspaper combed through police reports, court documents, social media and materials left behind by the ATF, all of which provide a rare view inside an undercover federal operation.

“I have never heard of those kinds of problems in an operation,” said Michael Bouchard, who retired five years ago as assistant director for field operations for the agency. “Sure, small bits and pieces, but that many in one case? I have never heard of anything like that.”

The agency has been on the defensive in recent years following the ill-fated Fast and Furious operation, run out of Arizona, where agents allowed sales of more than 2,000 guns to gun traffickers but then failed to keep track of most of them. Many turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, including two at the site where a U.S. border guard was killed.

And now, in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut, as President Barack Obama considers new restrictions on guns, the agency is poised to take on additional responsibilities.

The ATF has run storefront stings in other cities, holding news conferences trumpeting results and showing off the guns and drugs seized. In Milwaukee, the operation has been kept quiet.

Residents of the area, tucked between N. Humboldt Blvd. and the Milwaukee River, are angry the ATF secretly drew drug dealers and gun-toting felons to their neighborhood, which is rallying to improve.

Federal authorities said they could not say much about the Milwaukee operation because court cases have not been resolved and the ATF is still seeking suspects.

U.S. Attorney James Santelle, whose office was briefed on plans for the sting, declined to comment on problems in the operation, focusing instead on the number of defendants charged and the 145 guns seized, including three sawed-off shotguns, 10 stolen guns and eight guns with obliterated serial numbers.

Santelle said all federal investigations are not the same and noted in this case four of the defendants are facing long prison terms for being career armed criminals.

“They are plainly a threat to the community,” he said.

ATF spokesman Special Agent Robert Schmidt said he is convinced the operation didn’t bring crime to the neighborhood and instead made the streets of Milwaukee safer.

Schmidt declined to say how much the sting operation cost.

“Our number one responsibility is denying criminal access to firearms and that is what we are trying to do,” Schmidt said. “It is our duty to purchase these firearms to protect the American public and citizens of Milwaukee.”

Suspicious operation

When David Salkin put his single-story building on E. Meinecke Ave. up for rent on Craigslist, he had a choice: Lease to a church or Fearless Distributing.

He went with the upstart Fearless operation because they were willing to take all 8,000 square feet of the building and pay the $3,200 in monthly rent in cash.

The agent who signed the lease gave Salkin a fake name and home address. Fearless was not registered with the state. The agents told Salkin their operation was new and they would get to that.

The agents, wearing shirts that said “Brew City Hustle,” carved out a part of the warehouse for a showroom of jeans, coats, shoes and purses along with bongs and fake urine, for those trying to beat a drug test. They also set up an office with a cash-counting machine.

They installed secret cameras and a command center where the sting would be run.

The operation created a Facebook page and chose a striking logo – a skull with a slew of guns and knives fanned out behind – ripped off from a recent Sylvester Stallone movie, “The Expendables.” The store didn’t say it was in the gun business but the logo suggested that.

Agents “let it be known” they were willing to buy guns and drugs, according to documents from the circuit court charges. The records don’t say how they did that, but agents had business cards with the Fearless logo and the words “Buy, sell, or trade.” The cards were found by the landlord after agents left.

Salkin, who previously ran his sign business from the building, was a first-time landlord. He said he saw little of the Fearless operation because they mostly kept him out. What he saw gave him suspicions. It looked to him like they were selling counterfeit goods. But the rent was coming in – a relief after months without a tenant.

As secretive as the ATF was with Salkin, there were hints of what was going on. Workers at the tannery across the street noticed people going into the store carrying packages and guns, then coming out empty-handed. Odd for a place that was supposed to be selling things, they thought.

Mike Zielinski, a UPS driver in the area, said he asked the people running the operation if they needed to get an account for deliveries. What they said puzzled him.

“They said they wouldn’t be sending or getting anything. I thought that was odd because ‘distributing’ is in their name. Fearless Distributing,” he said. “I was wondering, what kind of business is that.”

They never sent or received anything via UPS in 10 months, Zielinski said.

Targeting ‘hot spots’

Milwaukee is among 31 cities where the ATF has dedicated a Violent Crime Impact Team. The teams are supposed to target “hot spots” – small, high-crime areas – and go after the “worst of the worst” violent criminals, according to the agency’s Best Practices report.

The agency launched the initiative in 2004 and quickly reported “enormous” success. Agency officials touted a drop in firearm-related homicides in pilot cities and credited the $35 million effort with helping local police departments solve other crimes.

But a U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General’s report two years later found no evidence that the teams reduced firearm crimes in the targeted areas. Authors of the report cited “inadequate direction” and “ineffective oversight” by the agency.

“We found that ATF based its analysis on insufficient data and faulty comparisons,” the report stated.

In some cases agents located their operations in areas where violent firearm crimes had already been declining, according to the report.

In more than half the cases studied, the ATF used citywide data rather than numbers from the target areas, favorably skewing their analyses when reporting on homicides committed with firearms, the report found. And, teams in several of the cities failed to implement key strategies, such as compiling “worst of the worst” lists, engaging in community outreach or utilizing tracing and other technological resources.

Still, the initiative expanded in 2006 with the addition of Birmingham, Ala.; Baton Rouge, La.; Milwaukee and other cities.

In Milwaukee, agents located Fearless Distributing in a neighborhood where aggravated assaults had been declining since at least 2008, according to an analysis by the Journal Sentinel relying on Milwaukee Police Department numbers.

Aggravated assaults within a mile radius of the storefront dropped to 109 last year from 193 in 2008. Homicides in the area ranged from zero to three per year during the last five years, far fewer than other crime-laden areas in the city.

ATF spokesman Schmidt would not say why the agency chose that location for a storefront sting.

“We pick a neighborhood if there is a property appropriate for what our needs are,” Schmidt said. “You look for pockets in the city . . . and you look for a number of other mechanisms that go into it in order to make a decision.”

Schmidt said he did not know of any recent evaluation, local or regional, examining the effectiveness of their operations.

“Look at how many cases have gone to the U.S. attorney,” he said.

Nationally, the agency’s website touts numbers showing teams referred an average of 671 cases per year for criminal charges from 2006-’09, with 14-year average prison sentences for those convicted. The Department of Justice issued news releases in Baltimore, Atlanta and elsewhere in the last couple of years praising the successes of individual operations.

In March, an undercover ATF sting made news in Richmond, Calif., for other reasons: when a gun-buying deal went bad and agents shot a suspect in the parking lot of a restaurant, sending customers diving for cover.

ATF officials defended the operation and agents’ actions.

Schmidt said funding for Violent Crime Impact Teams is being reduced in the agency’s $1.2 billion budget and that the ATF is launching a new, improved initiative in coming months called Frontline.

Top dollar paid for guns

Fearless Distributing was buying guns and drugs by March of last year. The sellers came from outside the Riverwest neighborhood, mostly from the near north side of Milwaukee, according to court documents.

The amount of drugs involved ranged from a gram of cocaine or an ounce of marijuana to an ounce of cocaine and seven grams of heroin on the high end. One charge is for selling fake drugs.

Gun charges also varied.

The ATF generally targets gun sellers using statutes that prohibit felons from having guns. The number of guns seized ranged from a single firearm to 25 to 30 guns.

ATF agents were paying top dollar for the guns, court documents show. For instance, Vance Fields sold a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun to agents at Fearless in September for $1,250, according the criminal complaint. That model has sold for roughly $400 to $700 in online auctions recently.

In one case, Brandon Gladney sold more than 30 guns to ATF agents, including some that he and Courvoisie Bryant bought at Gander Mountain, according to court documents. Bryant is charged in federal court with being a straw buyer – someone who purchases firearms for another person who is prohibited from having them.

Daniel Stiller, head of the federal defender’s service in Milwaukee, said such undercover operations are rare. The case involving Gladney and Bryant suggested to him that those defendants weren’t major criminals given they got guns from a store, not the street.

“I have to guess a true criminal on the streets of Milwaukee has the ability to obtain a firearm when needed from something other than a store,” Stiller said.

Guns stolen from ATF SUV

As the gun and drug buys continued, the operation went awry. In September, an agent parked his Ford Explorer at the Alterra on N. Humboldt Blvd., about a half mile away, with three ATF guns stored in a metal box in the back.

About 3 p.m. Sept. 13, an Alterra employee spotted three men breaking into the Explorer. They stole three guns: a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol and an M-4 .223-caliber fully automatic rifle. They also made off with ammunition and an ATF radio, according to a police report. It does not appear from the reports that the agent was at Alterra at the time of the break-in.

A major push began to find the weapons and the men who stole them, police records show. Two men were quickly arrested. An informant told police one of the suspects was showing off the guns and eight magazines of ammunition shortly after the vehicle burglary, according to police records.

One of the suspects hid the machine gun under a bed and took the handguns with him. He was questioned by police and refused to talk. He was released. No one has been charged in the burglary of the ATF guns, according to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Karen Loebel. She declined to say if charges would be coming.

The ATF soon had one of its stolen guns back, however.

The very next day, according to court documents, 19-year-old Marquise Jones contacted agents at Fearless Distributing and sold the Sig Sauer – and another unrelated handgun – back to agents.

The price: $1,400.

But Jones would not be arrested for two months. And when he was, it was not for the theft. His name does not appear on the police reports related to the vehicle break-in. He was charged with having a stolen gun.

Meanwhile, the hunt for the machine gun and the other stolen handgun continues.

“We are actively looking for any missing firearms that might be out there right now,” the ATF’s Schmidt said.

Gerald Nunziato, a retired ATF agent who supervised undercover operations, said he was shocked at the number of mistakes made during the operation. He questioned the decision to leave the agent’s truck at the coffee shop with guns inside.

“That bothers me the most,” Nunziato said. “The last thing you want to have is a gun stolen. If that gun is used to shoot someone, that is so personal.”

ATF operation ripped off

The operation ran into more trouble in October, when burglars broke into the building housing Fearless and cleaned out the ATF operation.

Late on Oct. 9, a resident, who didn’t want to be identified, spotted four men in the area in a car and a U-Haul truck who looked suspicious. He called police, but when they didn’t come quickly enough he went to the district station and reported what he saw in person. Police reports show officers came to investigate the next day. A Milwaukee police spokesman did not return a call for comment Tuesday.

The burglars made off with jewelry, clothing, auto parts, purses, Nike shoes and more, according to police reports. No one has been charged in the burglary.

The lease states that the alarm is included in the rent. But shortly after Fearless moved in, Salkin said he told the people running the store he was cutting the phone line, which connected the alarm. He said he assumed they would hook up their own alarm. They did not.

“You would think the ATF would know that,” Salkin said.

The day after the burglary, Salkin and his wife met with an ATF supervisor, who assured them that they would take care of everything.

Salkin said by going over on the $800 a month utility allotment and damage to walls, doors and carpeting, the ATF owes him about $15,000, which includes a month of lost rent.

The ATF has balked, saying there was less than $3,200 in damage and telling Salkin to return the security deposit. They told him to file a claim with the federal government and warned him to stop contacting them.

In an email to Salkin, ATF attorney Patricia Cangemi wrote, “If you continue to contact the Agents after being so advised your contacts may be construed as harassment under the law. Threats or harassment of a Federal Agent is of grave concern. Utilizing the telephone or a computer to perpetrate threats or harassment is also a serious matter.”

Nunziato said he worked in undercover ATF storefront operations in the 1980s near Detroit. He said they too didn’t tell the landlord, but when they left, they fixed the property to make it as good or better than when they moved in. Nunziato said he could not fathom the Milwaukee agents just walking away from a damaged building.

“To back up a toilet? Not paying bills? And then damaging the building?” he said. “It seems like the planning of this case was not done very well. Looks like it was done as they went along.”

The Riverwest neighborhood where ATF ran its operation is a mix of Milwaukee bungalows, flats and duplexes, with many longtime homeowners mingled with renters. A few bars are sprinkled in the area along with the tannery and Salkin’s former sign company.

The area has rallied against crime, lobbying to get a drug house closed. Neighbors developed a tight bond with their beat cop after a homicide occurred several blocks to the north.

“It’s a whole mix of people here and that is what I really love,” said Lorraine Jacobs, a resident for 27 years. “I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.”

Jacobs and others feel betrayed by the ATF operation bringing drug dealers and gun sellers to their area.

“I feel like we were fooled, taken advantage of,” she said. “It is unfortunate for our neighborhood. We are trying to bring it up and we are close to that. We just didn’t need this.”

Jason Reichel, who lives near Jacobs, said he would have preferred the operation wasn’t in his neighborhood, but wouldn’t want to push it off on another area. He said he is concerned ATF did not have control over the operation, given the store was ripped off.

“I would expect that the ATF wouldn’t get robbed, that they would have security measures,” he said. “Maybe I watch too many movies. You would think it would be hard to rob an ATF operation.”

Turns out, the ATF has weapons stolen or loses them more frequently than the public might think, according to a 2008 report from the Office of the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Justice.

In a five-year span from 2002-’07, for example, 76 ATF weapons were stolen, lost or missing, according to the report. That’s nearly double the number compared with the FBI and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, when considering rates per 1,000 agents.

Todd Roehl, a resident for five years, wonders if the ATF operation explains two unusual crimes in the neighborhood. Over the summer, the wheels were stolen off his wife’s SUV, which was left up on rocks. A couple of months later, thieves attempted to break in to his shed. The ATF operation was buying stolen goods, but he is unsure if his wife’s wheels ended up there.

He said the ATF should have chosen a less residential area, perhaps an industrial park or retail area.

“I have two small children and this is going on while they are playing outside?” he said. “The stigma is damaging. Every neighborhood tries to make things better. It does not help to have your own government planting crime here, which takes down, destroys and damages that. It’s like, ‘Thanks.’ “

Botched arrests

After the burglary, agents wound down the operation and prepared to make arrests in November. The defendants charged with drug crimes generally went to state court while defendants facing gun cases, which also may include drug charges, went to federal court.

But during the roundup, ATF arrested and sought charges against three defendants who proved to be the wrong people, even though they had video of the defendants.

One of those was Adrienne Jones. ATF agents said Jones sold them six grams of marijuana on March 7. Problem was, Jones reported to a federal prison in Pennsylvania to start a sentence on March 1, according to Chris Burke, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons – on an ATF case.

“He was definitely in our custody,” Burke said. “He never left.”

Loebel, the prosecutor, dismissed the charges against Jones and the other two. She said agents told her that they could not prove elements of the charge.

“Under those circumstances, we want to make sure we get the right one,” she said. “You don’t want to charge the wrong person. You certainly don’t want to prosecute the wrong person. That is not something you strive for.”

Asked about the quality of the remaining 15 cases, Loebel would only say she is proceeding with the prosecution of them and that all are important.

“It is really a gamut of individuals and offenses,” she said. “My position is any amount of drugs, they have bad effects on people and on the community.”

ATF’s Schmidt said the agency always strives to identify the correct person before seeking charges against them.

“Certainly it is a concern,” he said. “I think they put their best effort forward and it was their belief and information that these were the correct people.”

Allan J. Vestal of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

 

Sandy Hook Shooting: Man in Camo Exposed

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

This is a Reblogged from  theintelhub.com.

 

Posted by Jason Bermas

 

Camo Man

 

Who was the man in camouflage running from officers in this video?

NEWTOWN — Many people have identified the man in the woods as Chris Manfredonia, a father of one of the students allegedly on his way to Sandy Hook Elementary School the day the horrific shooting took place, to bake gingerbread cookies with students.

But is that the case?

It does seem Mr. Manfredonia was detained, but is he the man in the camo pants?

First let’s look at the official timeline as reported by ABC News;

“9:40 a.m.: Shooting reported to state police. State troopers descend on the scene, as well as federal agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.

11 a.m.: Police give the first indications that there are multiple fatalities inside. Fifty minutes later, they announce that most of the dead are children.”

So the first police response to the media is around 11 in the morning as more and more emergency workers, police, and tactical squads arrive.

This is around 1 hour and 20 minutes after the event is reported. According to Media reports it is not until 12:24 p.m. the man in the woods is spotted and chased as reported by ABC News;

“12:24 p.m.: Law enforcement agents with weapons drawn seen running into wooded area behind the school.”

This indicates that whoever was in the woods was there for 2 hours and 44 minutes after the attack!

This makes the case that the person was hiding, as he clearly runs away in the video. If you were a father after the police arrived wouldn’t you want to ensure your child was safe?

It appears that another man was also detained other than Mr. Manfredonia as we have witness accounts of two seperate people in cuffs.

1 minute in…

3rd Shooter

2nd man in camo

Notice that the second man mentions he is in the front seat of the car. Why would a suspect be put in the front seat? What if it were an off duty police officer from another town?

The Newtown Bee reported, “A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.”

So now we have a report of an armed tactical squad officer in the woods almost 3 hours after the attack? Why is this man’s name never revealed to the media, and with the media everywhere why has there been no video of this man released.

In fact, we have confirmation that such footage exists.

At 2:20 reporter Erin Logan confirms they have footage of this man.

Staff of theintelhub.com have attempted to obtain this footage by contacting both Logan and WTNH itself, however we were met with resistance and have been unable to get this footage to put to rest once and for all who the man in camo really was.

*****

Jason Bermas is a documentary filmmaker and investigative journalist working with theintelhub.coma popular alternative news website.

Is that Nun on the Left Carrying a Weapon under her Coat? You Decide…

Unidentified Nuns were seen leaving the scene of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary School on the day of the massacre.

( Don Emmert, Getty Images / December 14, 2012 ) —”Two unidentified nuns leave the scene of the aftermath at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. At least 27 people, including 18 children, were killed.”

According to an article by the Intelhub,

“At 1:35:07 into the video, “One may be wearing a nun outfit, headed toward Danbury and Stoney Hill, purple van”.

“Here is a recap of Ambellas’ report;

Newtown Police: ‘Two Occupants with Ski Masks, One May be Wearing a Nun Outfit’

Note: On December 14, 2012, Shepard Ambellas reported the following;

A caller on the Alex Jones show Friday (the day of the shooting) gave a report from Newtown that he was in a bowling alley before 10 AM (before the shootings took place) signifying that the school population was possibly held artificially low Friday as a possible militarized operation took place.

The caller has also stated that an unverified rumor is circulating amongst the school staff that the shooters were described to be disguised ”organized group of nuns”infiltrated the school property to carry out the shootings leaving at least 26 dead at an elementary school Friday.

Now evidence has come forth that correlates with school staff claims that the shooters were “disguised group of nuns” in a shocking audio capture of  Newtown Police operations on the morning of the shooting.”

Police Dispatch tape

 

THE MOTIVE at Newtown

 

Woman Claims Sandy Hook Coroner admitted Shooting was a Hoax – motive reveals itself…

Stephanie Sledge | The Government Rag | 26Jan2013 | Opinion

On Friday, January 25, 2013, on the The Power Hour w/ Joyce Riley, a woman by the name of ‘Bonnie’ called in and reported that the Sandy Hook coroner, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, was spotted in Las Vegas. The woman claims she has information that she obtained from a close friend, who owns a business in the area.

She claims, “he just got back from Las Vegas, now mind you, this business owner is not like one of us – you know, he is just a normal citizen, but he told him he said –  he was in Las Vegas and he was at one of the tables, and across the table from him was the coroner from Sandy Hook” (Photo obtained; Vegas Card).

(made corrections from previous posting an error in the above quote).

“He took a picture of him on his cell phone, and uh, so the guy they got, they got to talking when he saw him take a picture and the man said… “You know, this is pretty fishy about Sandy Hook and its starting to look like a hoax,” and the doctor said, “it was a hoax.”

The woman did not elaborate anymore and claims she was trying to get the picture that the man took on his cell phone. Interestingly enough, the International Association of Coroners & Medical Examiners (IAC&ME) 2013, Executive Board Meeting, was held in Las Vegas on January 22-24th, 2013. This period would coincide with the statement that the caller claims her friend was also in Las Vegas.

Dr. H. Wayne Carver is the Chief Medical Examiner at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiners under the control of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations. The Commission is composed of nine members, who are appointed by Governor Dannel P. Malloy. He has headed the office since 1989. He was born in St. Louis, Missouri and raised in Skokie, Ill. He earned an undergraduate degree at Brown University and his residency and pathology training at the University of Chicago and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. He was originally deputy chief medical examiner and then promoted. His salary was around $299,783 per year.

Dr. Carver had been a long time medical examiner. According to his license from the Dept. of Public Health, he has been licensed in CT since July 1982. He has testified in high-profile cases including the Cheshire home-invasion case, the serial killer, Michael Ross case, and the Richards Crafts “wood-chipper’ murder case. Michael Ross was executed in 2005. He has always been known to testify well on the stand and assist the police for a prosecution.

Dr. Carver even threatened the state in the later part of 2011 to resign from his position as Chief Medical Examiner. According to WTNH 8, “Carver accused Malloy’s administration of meddling with the medical examiner’s office by removing five employees as part of an effort to centralize certain state agency operations, such as payroll.” Carver also said, “At the time that the move wouldn’t save any money and could jeopardize the independence of his agency.” Then, just a few weeks later, Carver withdrew his resignation claiming that he would not be able to stay on as an assistant. Carver mocked the budget cuts and did not appreciate that his “department had its national accreditation downgraded by one agency and dropped by another.”

Carver claimed these problems would have to be rectified. Carver took his issues up with the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, which governs his office. He professed that he would have to gain clearance through the governor’s budget office, the Office of Policy Management (OPM)under Benjamin Barnes, which at that time was in the process of reorganizing the Office of Medical Examiner into the University of Connecticut Health Center. According to the OPM’s website, “OPM is composed of seven divisions that report to the Office of the Secretary: Administration, Budget and Financial Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division,  Finance, Intergovernmental Policy, Labor Relations, and Policy Development and Planning. The agency also maintains an office in the State Capitol for OPM’s legislative activities.”

So, under the command of Hillary Clinton, that is… The same woman that signed the United Nations (UN) Small Arms Treaty? Okay all, go back to sleep now – it’s just a conspiracy theory….

Connecticut Office of Medical Examiners has full accreditation from the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American Board of Forensic Toxicology. Other related agencies, according to their website are:

 

No Assault Rifle Found at Sandy Hook Massacre

___________________________

___________________________

UPDATE: Sandy Hook Massacre Linked to Department of Homeland Security Exercise HERE

Update: Substantail evidence for 3-4 shooters and connection to LIBOR scandal Evidence HERE

A late night video shows police destroying forensic evidence when they handle and eject rounds from a loaded firearm located inside the trunk of a car that was presumably driven to the scene by murder suspect, Adam Lanza.

If the AR-15 remained in the car as reported by CBS News, Pete Williams as told to him by federal and State authorities, it could not have been used as the murder weapon.   If the firearm found in the car was not a Bushmaster AR-15 we must consider that this assault rifle, allegedly owned by Lanza’s mother,  was never at the crime scene.

If .223 bullet casings were found in the school how did authorities know for sure they were fired from Lanza’s Bushmaster AR-15 belonging to Lanza’s mother if the gun discovered in the trunk was a shotgun?

More baffling is that the car trunk was opened hours after authorities had already confirmed they found a Bushmaster AR-15 in the car.

If .223 shells were found at the scene along with the arrest of 2-3 suspects who else could have been firing an assault weapon inside the school?

From ABC News:

“A Sig Sauer handgun and a Glock handgun were used in the slaying and .223 shell casings — a round used in a semi-automatic military style rifle — were also found at the scene. ” (Bushmaster AR-15 was not specifically mentioned)

“…However, federal authorities cannot confirm that the handguns or the rifle were the weapons recovered at the school. “

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UNJHaXf_k19

From CBS News:

“A law enforcement source told CBS News’ Pat Milton that casings (spent shells) from a .223 semi automatic rifle were found inside the school.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559261/connecticut-elementary-school-massacre-18-children-among-27-dead/

Video Source

 

WH CLAIMS BIN LADEN BURIAL DETAILS WOULD LEAD TO ‘RETALIATORY ATTACKS’

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

Posted by TOM FITTON

 

The Obama administration’s hypocrisy over information related to the bin Laden raid and burial apparently knows no bounds.

Judicial Watch has battled the Obama administration for records detailing the leaking of sensitive details to the filmmakers behind Zero Dark Thirty, a movie that documents the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. The film was recently released nationally to critical acclaim and much press interest.

JW uncovered records showing that the Obama administration sought “high visibility” in bid Laden projects. They wanted to project Barack Obama as a strong leader in command, and cared nothing about how terrorists would react to the film.

Now contrast this approach with the administration’s handling of information (also sought by Judicial Watch) detailing the bin Laden burial at sea.

On January 15, 2013, the United States Navy filed a motion for summary judgment of our July 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to burial details. The Obama administration argued that information related to the burial should be kept secret because it might offend terrorists abroad.

Do you see the hypocrisy? The Obama administration leaks details about the raid when it suits their purpose and withholds them when it does not.

So what’s the real reason the Obama administration fears the release of the burial details? Let’s review what we know so far.

Following the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL raid that led to bin Laden’s death, the al Qaeda leader was reportedly transported by the USS Carl Vinson and buried at sea in accordance with “Muslim law.” We wanted to know exactly what “Muslim law” dictated in this case, so we filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking access to details regarding “any funeral ceremony, rite, or ritual” confirming that the slain terrorist was given full Islamic burial honors.

And here’s what we got: 31 pages of heavily redacted emails concerning the burial, including a paragraph including previously unknown details of the bin Laden interment at sea:

Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was [sic] followed. The deceased body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flatboard, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body slid into the sea.

Now, the documents did not include the “prepared religious remarks” read at bin Laden’s burial as requested in the FOIA, a key detail, for certain.

If U.S. Navy regulations were followed, the remarks likely included the exculpatory Muslim prayer:

O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodging, wash him (off from his sins) with water, snow, and ice, purify him… make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave and the punishment of hell.

The emails indicated that “less than a dozen” members of military leadership were informed of the burial and that “no sailors watched.”

Clearly, the Obama administration would not want the public to know that the U.S. government prayed for bin Laden, the mastermind of a terrorist attack that led to the murders of thousands of innocents on American soil, to save him from hell and help him enter paradise. But they can’t actually say so in court, so they looked for cover in a familiar place, blaming the failure to provide the remarks and additional information related to the bin Laden burial on “operational security.”

In a separate lawsuit against the CIA, bin Laden post-mortem photos and videos were withheld citing national security concerns.

In its motion for summary judgment, which, if granted by the court, would end the lawsuit, the U.S. Navy cited a sworn declaration from Lieutenant General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Director of the Joint Staff, who repeated the narrative that details related to the bin Laden burial could inflame tensions among terrorists:

…Notwithstanding the fact that proper burial procedures were followed during bin Laden’s burial at sea, al-Qa’ida would almost assuredly question the propriety of those procedures, thereby inflaming tensions among overseas populations that include al- Qa’ida members or sympathizers, encouraging propaganda by various terrorist groups or other entities hostile to the United States, and potentially leading to retaliatory attacks against the United States and its citizens both at home and abroad.

Am I the only person who sees echoes of “blame the Benghazi attack on a video” in this argument? But here’s another problem for the Obama administration: there is no exemption in FOIA law that allows the government to withhold records from the American people because terrorists might be offended.

So first, we were told that we could not see videos or photos of the burial, and now we are told we can’t see written information about the burial. This attempt to rewrite FOIA law to include a “let’s not offend the terrorists” exemption is another example of the Obama administration’s thinking it is the law unto itself.

JW has taken the lead in contrasting the Obama administration’s heavy reliance on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the American people with its open embrace of filmmakers producing the bin Laden assault film that praises Obama.

The Obama administration has admitted in other Judicial Watch litigation that leaks of sensitive information to the producers of the film Zero Dark Thirty could cause an“unnecessary security and counterintelligence risk.”

The Obama administration can’t have it both ways. Either the information is sensitive and should not have been released, or it is not sensitive and the American people should be granted access to the same information given to the filmmakers. Importantly, disclosures forced by the Judicial Watch litigation also suggest John Brennan, President Obama’s pick to head the CIA, was involved in the bin Laden raid information leaks.

In the meantime, we will work to protect the public’s right to know in the courts. The American people have a God-given right to information about certain activities of their government – whether or not it bothers the terrorists.

U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

 I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 This is a Reblogged from www.dailymail.co.uk.

 Posted byLOUISE BOYLE

Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying ‘the idea is approved by Washington‘

Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was ‘totally unacceptable’

Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

War games: An explosion in the Syrian city of Homs last month. It has been now been suggested that the U.S. backed the use of chemical weapons to spur international military intervention

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty. 

It reads: ‘Phil… We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

‘We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.

‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

‘Kind regards, David.’

Britam Defence had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.

Leaked: The email was allegedly sent from a top official at a British defense contractor regarding a ‘Washington approved’ chemical attack in Syria which could be blamed on Assad’s regime

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumés and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

Dave Goulding’s Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations. A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.

The U.S. State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication. 

However the use of chemical warfare was raised at a press briefing in D.C. on January 28.

A spokesman said that the U.S. joined the international community in ‘setting common redlines about the consequences of using chemical weapons’.

Countless losses: Families attempt to identify the bodies of Syrian fighters shot and dumped in a river in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo today

Devastation: People gather at a site hit by what activists said was missiles fired by a Syrian Air Force fighter jet from forces loyal to Assad, at the souk of Azaz, north of Aleppo on January 13

A leaked U.S. government cable revealed that the Syrian army more than likely had used chemical weapons during an attack in the city of Homs in December. 

The document, revealed in The Cable, revealed the findings of an investigation by Scott Frederic Kilner, the U.S. consul general in Istanbul, into accusations that the Syrian army used chemical weapons in the December 23 attack.

 An Obama administration official who had access to the document was reported as saying: ‘We can’t definitely say 100 per cent, but Syrian contacts made a compelling case that Agent 15 was used in Homs on Dec. 23.’

Mr Kilner’s investigation included interviews with civilians, doctors, and rebels present during the attack, as well as the former general and head of the Syrian WMD program, Mustafa al-Sheikh.

Dr. Nashwan Abu Abdo, a neurologist in Homs, is certain chemical weapons were used. He told The Cable: ‘It was a chemical weapon, we are sure of that, because tear gas can’t cause the death of people.’

Threats: Barack Obama said during a speech last month that if Syria used chemical weapons against its own people it would be ‘totally unacceptable’

Tyrant: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, pictured with his wife Asma, is facing increasing international pressure over his brutal massacre of his own people

Eye witness accounts from the investigation revealed that a tank launched chemical weapons and caused people exposed to them to suffer nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, delirium, seizures, and respiratory distress.

The symptoms suggest that the weaponized compound Agent-15 was responsible. Syria denied using chemical weapons and said it would never use them against citizens.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters at the time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said his biggest concern was how the U.S. and allies would secure the chemical and biological weapons sites scattered across Syria and ensure the components don’t end up in the wrong hands if the regime falls, particularly under violent conditions.

Government forces and rebels in Syria have both been accused by human rights groups of carrying out brutal warfare in the 22-month-old conflict, which has claimed more than 60,000 lives.

 

Read more:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html#ixzz2JRCUPHvI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Washington’s Official Lies About Spending

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from /news.investors.com.

Posted byWalter Williams

Entitlements: Washington’s Official Lies About Spending

Let’s expose presidential prevarication. Earlier this year, President Obama warned that Social Security checks will be delayed if Congress fails to increase the government’s borrowing authority by raising the debt ceiling. However, there’s an issue with this warning. According to the 2012 Social Security trustees report, assets in Social Security’s trust funds totaled $2.7 trillion, and Social Security expenditures totaled $773 billion.

Therefore, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit, Social Security recipients are guaranteed their checks. Just take the money from the $2.7 trillion assets held in trust.

Which is the lie, Social Security checks must be delayed if the debt ceiling is not raised or there’s $2.7 trillion in the Social Security trust funds?

The fact of the matter is that they are both lies. The Social Security trust funds contain nothing more than IOUs, bonds that have absolutely no market value.

In other words, they are worthless bookkeeping entries. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that the taxes paid by today’s workers are immediately sent out as payment to today’s retirees. Social Security is just another federal program funded out of general revenues.

GOP Spends, Too

If the congressional Republicans had one ounce of brains, they could easily thwart the president and his leftist allies’ attempt to frighten older Americans about not receiving their Social Security checks and thwart their attempt to frighten other Americans by saying “we are not a deadbeat nation” and suggesting the possibility of default if the debt ceiling is not raised.

In 2012, monthly federal tax revenue was about $200 billion. Social Security expenditures were about $65 billion per month, and the monthly interest payment on our $16 trillion national debt was about $30 billion. The House could simply enact a bill prioritizing how federal tax revenues will be spent. It could mandate that Social Security recipients and interest payments on the national debt be the first priorities and then send the measure to the Senate and the president for concurrence.

It might not be a matter of brains as to why the Republican House wouldn’t enact such a measure; it likes spending just as the Democrats.

I believe our nation is rapidly approaching our last chance to do something about runaway government before we face the type of economic turmoil seen in Greece and other European nations. Tax revenue has remained constant for the past 50 years, averaging about 18% of gross domestic product. During that interval, federal

Living Off Others

What accounts for this growth in federal spending? The liberals like to blame national defense, but in 1962, national defense expenditures were 50% of the federal budget; today they are 19%.

What accounts for most federal spending is the set of programs euphemistically called entitlements.

In 1962, entitlement spending was 31% of the federal budget; today it is 62%. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone take up 44% of the federal budget, and worse than that, it’s those expenditures that are the most rapidly growing spending areas.

Our federal debt and deficits are unsustainable and are driven by programs under which Congress takes the earnings of one American to give to another, or entitlements. How long can Congress take in $200 billion in revenue per month and spend $360 billion per month? That means roughly 40 cents of every federal dollar spent has to be borrowed.

The undeniable fact of business is that a greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. That’s what’s driving Europe’s economic problems, and it’s what’s driving ours. The true tragedy is that just to acknowledge that fact is political suicide, as presidential contender Mitt Romney found out.

We can’t blame politicians. It’s the American people who will crucify a politician who even talks about cutting their favorite handout.spending has risen from less than 20% to more than 25% of GDP

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/012913-642359-social-security-trust-fund-worthless-bookkeeping-entry.htm#ixzz2JRAYN3OO

.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/012913-642359-social-security-trust-fund-worthless-bookkeeping-entry.htm#ixzz2JRAOWRey

 

The Left Has NO Problem Breaking Law!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from dailycaller.com.

Posted byVince Coglianese Senior Online Editor

Brock’s Glock: In anti-gun DC, Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock

A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.

TheDC has previously reported that Brock’s one-time aide, Haydn Price-Morris, carried a concealed Glock handgun as he traveled with the liberal leader to public events in Washington, D.C. (RELATED: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, Media Matters’ close coordination with White House and news organizations)

But the extent of Brock’s armed activities have been largely unknown until now, even among those closest to him. An array of current and former Media Matters sources, all with intimate knowledge about the inner workings of the organization, granted extensive interviews to TheDC.

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.

TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.

According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.

Between Price-Morris’ early 2009 arrival and late 2010 departure from Media Matters, he also acquired a shotgun for Brock’s protection.

Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.

On at least one occasion, Brock — accompanied by his armed aide — visited California to attend a “Democracy Alliance” summit of major Democratic donors and lawmakers.

That gathering included such major figures in Democratic politics as billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis and Bill Benter, former Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, and the politician behind the federal government’s 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

On Thursday, Feinstein re-introduced a new version of the ban which would reinstate and greatly expand the law, which expired in 2004. Reached Thursday, a spokesman for Feinstein did not respond to a request for comment related to the senator’s attendance, alongside Brock and Price-Morris, at the Democracy Alliance meeting.

Spokespersons for Soros and Benter did not reply to emailed requests for comment.

Brock’s bodyguard had a personal weapon with a 17-round magazine

It’s unclear if Price-Morris was carrying his Media Matters-supplied Glock to that Democracy Alliance summit, but a well-placed source told TheDC he was carrying a concealed weapon at the event.

Brock’s aide was a “gun enthusiast,” according to the source, and often selected a weapon from his personal collection of firearms that would suit a given occasion and his taste. Price-Morris would occasionally carry a separate Glock that he owned personally, one with a high-capacity magazine — 17-rounds — if his outfit was loose enough to conceal the weapon.

Media Matters had reason to be concerned about news of its use of firearms becoming public. (RELATED: The Daily Caller’s complete coverage of Media Matters for America)

Aside from risking the disapproval or outrage of disenchanted anti-gun donors, it appears Media Matters personnel may have committed several serious crimes.

“If he carried it in DC, that’s a felony,” Stephen Halbrook, a D.C.-area lawyer with more than 35 years of experience practicing gun law nationwide, confirmed to TheDC.

“Any weapon [with] over 10 rounds is illegal under D.C. law,” said Halbrook of Price-Morris’ 17-round-capacity Glock. “And this is for mere possession. If you have a gun that’s unregistered, that’s another felony by the way.”

“If you’re carrying it around, you’re committing two crimes: one, the crime of carrying the firearm, and two, having it unregistered — the status of it being unregistered. Both of those would be felonies,” he explained.

“And then the ammunition can be a separate charge: If you don’t have a registered gun, then you can’t have ammunition in D.C.”

For carrying a fully-loaded Glock in Washington without a permit, Price-Morris “could be looking at some substantial prison time because if we use the low-end felony sentence of five years, you could get five years for the non-registration, five for the carrying, and then [more for] the second offenses of the magazine being over 10 rounds and then the cartridges,” said Halbrook.

Halbrook said Brock also risks facing criminal charges.

It could be considered a criminal “conspiracy,” Halbrook explained, “if they set up this arrangement and everything that was done was illegal. Then they would be a conspirator, or maybe an aider or abettor of a crime.”

Aside from Brock and Price-Morris, few at Media Matters knew Brock had armed his aide, according to multiple Media Matters sources.

One source described Brock as “very shy,” explaining that while Price-Morris was there, he rarely confided in anyone outside of his aide and two other people: then-Media Matters president Eric Burns and Brock’s longtime fundraiser, Mary Pat Bonner.

Burns has since started his own public relations firm and would not respond to TheDC’s requests for comment.

Bonner, who sources say now shares office space with Brock inside Media Matters, also did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

‘Holy shit! It was so beyond what was acceptable’

Whether they were aware of the guns or not, Media Matters sources viewed Price-Morris as “very protective” of Brock.

Reflecting on an incident — previously reported by TheDC — where Price-Morris whisked his boss from the roof of Media Matters’ Washington headquarters for fear of “snipers,” one former staffer said Brock’s aide was “a strange kind of guy.”

“I think he [Price-Morris] worried more about David’s security than David worried about it,” she said.

She was one of several sources that expressed displeasure with Price-Morris’ demeanor, calling him a “loose cannon.”

“Haydn was another one of those people that nobody in the office really got along with,” she said.

He was “arrogant,” agreed another source, who said Price-Morris exuded a “sense of entitlement” exceptional even for Washington, D.C.

Many of Brock’s senior employees claim they were caught completely by surprise when in late 2010, staffers became aware of Price-Morris’ gun after he revealed his concealed weapon to a female employee.

One former senior employee told TheDC the Media Matters staff was “shocked” to learn of the gun. Another said the in-house reaction was “like, ‘Holy shit!’ It was so beyond what was acceptable.”

Speaking to TheDC, multiple Media Matters staffers described an atmosphere of confusion surrounding why Price-Morris had a gun when so much of the liberal organization’s work was aimed at restricting the public’s access to firearms.

In the aftermath of the December 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Media Matters has been on the gun control warpath, commissioning hundreds of pieces supportive of restrictions on firearms.

As one source put it, Brock was “terrified” that the gun story would get out.

“George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.,” said the source.

The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based philanthropy whose board of directors included Barack Obama from 1994 to 2002, awarded $400,000 to Media Matters for “a gun and public safety issue initiative” in 2010 — the same year the staff learned of Price-Morris’ gun. (RELATED: Left-wing foundations lavish millions on Media Matters)

A spokeswoman for the Joyce Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

Likewise, the David Bohnett Foundation — started by Geocities co-founder David Bohnett — gave Media Matters $75,000 between 2010 and 2011, specifically for “gun safety” operations.

Foundation executive director Michael Fleming declined to comment for this report.

One former Media Matters staffer expressed disbelief that Brock could have approved of Price-Morris carrying a concealed weapon. “I can’t imagine David wouldn’t have known this wasn’t the type of thing that wouldn’t blow up in his face,” the source explained.

Despite Brock’s knowledge of the guns, his organization successfully laid the blame for the lapse in judgment at Price-Morris’ feet, and he was quickly let go.

Price-Morris disappeared from Washington, D.C. not long after, moving with his wife from their Annapolis, Md. home to Jersey City, N.J. — but not before returning the guns to Media Matters through a third party.

Emails: how Media Matters got rid of the guns

By the beginning of April 2011, Media Matters was scrambling to retrieve the weapons from Price-Morris. An email exchange obtained by TheDC shows that the group clearly had a stake in the weapons.

Matt Reents, a former senior Media Matters staffer, emailed Price-Morris on April 4, 2011 asking him to transfer ownership of a shotgun to a man named Robert Stewart. Reents also explained that the Glock would be surrendered to the police.

“MD [Maryland] law doesn’t require paperwork or registration when transferring a shotgun,” Reents emailed Price-Morris that Monday morning. “For our records, you will just need to sign a letter designating Robert Stewart as the new owner of the gun (I’ll send the letter to sign once Robert gives me the shotgun’s serial number to put in the letter).”

“Robert is also going to surrender the handgun to the police,” Reents continued. “As it was not registered, this will be straight-forward and won’t require any additional action on your part. If you have any purchase documentation on the handgun, let me know (it was purchased with cash, right?).”

Read the emails:

It’s unclear what police department the handgun was surrendered to. A spokeswoman for Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department told TheDC that the department would have to do too much “digging” to provide a timely response for this report.

Price-Morris replied to Reents minutes later, claiming the Glock “was registered in MD” and that Stewart had already “removed it from Maryland.”

“There is no paperwork of the registration on file,” Reents responded, “and Rob ran the handgun in the police system to verify. Do you have a copy of the handgun registration? Either way it won’t be a problem for turning the handgun pack into the police for disposal. But please let me know what paperwork you do have so we can complete the file and dispose of the gun properly. Thanks!”

“[Y]es, will do,” Price-Morris replied.

Reents, who for nine months was simultaneously operations manager at Media Matters and director of operations for Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century political action committee, could not be reached for comment. (RELATED: After slow start, Brock’s American Bridge takes $1 mil from Soros)

Reents is no longer with either group, according to his LinkedIn profile.

In early 2012, when TheDC began investigating Price-Morris’ departure, he frantically phoned Media Matters to alert the group that he had received inquiries.

“They asked me if David had me bring a gun to work,” he warned someone at the organization, according to an inside source.

Price-Morris would not comment on the record for this report, but Media Matters insiders told TheDC that his silence is rumored, internally, to have been purchased by the group.

Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, Media Matters spokeswoman Jess Levin told TheDC, “Let me think about it and I will get back to you.”

Media Matters did not return that request for comment.

Alex Pappas contributed to this report.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/#ixzz2JJewXtf3

 

List of Lies

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from Obama Lies.com.

 

Below is a list of Obama’s documented lies so far with the most recent lies first. 

Lies During Fourth Year

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”
Politifact.com

“Mitt Romney raised nursing home fees eight times.”
Politifact.com

“Mitt Romney called the Arizona law a model for the nation.”
Politifact.com

“Planned Parenthood provides mammograms”
Spero News

“We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system”
cbsnews.com

Benghazi violence was caused by an internet video & demonstrations
State Department

“Mitt Romney Plans to fire Big Bird”
Politifact.com

“Under Gov. Romney’s definition … Donald Trump is a small business.”
politifact.com

Because of Obamacare, “over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it’s true — but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.”
politifact.com

“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration”
abcnews.com

Romney and Ryan will gut pell grants for low-income college students.
Factcheck.org

My budget will cut the deficit by $4 Trillion over 10 years.
Factcheck.org

“I am told that Governor Romney’s new running mate, Paul Ryan, might be around Iowa the next few days,” he said while in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “He is one of the leaders of Congress standing in the way. So if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities.”
House passed bill on August 2, 2012 (Paul Ryan voted yes)

The American automobile industry has come roaring back…So now I want to say what we did with the auto industry, we can do it in manufacturing across America. Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China. And that means supporting investment here. Governor Romney … invested in companies that were called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing. I don’t want to outsource. I want to insource.
Forbes- Outsourcer-In-Chief: Obama Of General Motors

“You Didn’t Build that”
A few examples

Lies During Third Year

I will walk on that picket line with you, if workers are denied the right to bargain.
Youtube

In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama said that American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.
www.breitbart.com

I’ve done more for Israel’s security than any President ever
Obama aided Islamic Extremists take over of Egypt/ Libya – Weapons pour into Gaza

Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week
Examiner

“Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.”
Like Raising taxes?

Obama met highly qualified out of work teacher Robert Baroz
He wasn’t out of work and Obama never met him.

GOP Responsible for Obama Jobs Bill Not Passing
Dems Rejected Jobs Bill

You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem
Gallup Poll: Only 69%

These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. Congress has run up the credit card, and we now have an obligation to pay our bills.
Looks like it’s been incurred mostly in the years of Obama

Jobs Bill Paid for
Seems not so much Paid for

Then you’ve got their(GOP)which is dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance
Barack Obama, campaiging in Asheville, NC, 10/17/11

I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
American.com

USA producing more oil than ever before
Petroleum Insights

Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”
Department of Homeland Security says 5%

Rich doesn’t pay their fair share.
National Taxpayers Union

Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children.
Cnn Interview

Lies During Second Year

Obama claimed the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.
nationalreview.com

No signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law
Obama Lies to Keep Czars

No “boots” on the ground Libya
Anyone that has worked with the AC-130 gunship can tell you, you need spotters to let aircraft know where the targets are.  Usually it is Special Forces, Rangers etc trained for this mission. It’s CIA Agents in Libya on the ground

Reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex, risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis.
Obama Lies About Financial Reform Bill

All Americans WILL BE were, “surprised, disappointed and angry” about lockerbie bomber
Obama Memo

I will not rest until the BP Oil Spill stops
Obama’s Schedule

The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
Campaign and Presidency

If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it
TownHall

“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax
Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans

We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.
Obama’s oval office speech in June 2010

Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.
Arizona Immigration Law

Doctors choose amputation because they get better compensation. Greedy Doctors taking out tonsils for more money.
Claims never documented

The Health Care Package will pay for itself
Time

Republicans don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas — not one.
Hmm Immigration?

We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
Democratic Debate Lies

Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas
Video Proof

I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go”
Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar “Shovel Ready” bill.

I got the Message from Massachusetts
Daily Bail

Lies During First Year

We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” – caught cooking the books and now changed to ‘jobs supported’ versus ‘created/saved’
AP fact Checker

Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. … That wasn’t me.” – Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, controlled the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited.Obama supported the emergency bailout package in Bush’s final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
AP fact Checker

Collective salvation
Obama calls himself a Christian

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama Inauguration. 20 Jan 2009

Cut Deficit in Half by end of first term
Associated Press Video

Health Care deals will be covered on C-span
Obama Lies

As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide
ABC

Recovery Act will save or create jobs
ABC News

Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus.
Obama Lies

No Earmarks in the $787 Billion Stimulus
CNN

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan
Specator.Org

We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages.
Obama Lies

I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
NPR

Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year
Council on Foreign Relations.

Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year.
Businessweek: Obama Agnostic on taxes
List of Tax Promise Violations

2008 Campaign Lies

I will walk the picket line with you, if workers are denied the right to bargain
Youtube

No more wiretapping of citizens
Youtube

Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
News Busters

I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Obama campaign would accept public funding
ABC

Minimum Wage will increase to $9.50/hr
A Socialist

Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995 fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.
Mounting Heath Care Lies

Didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was Radical
Dreams of My Father – A radical Socialist.

Would have the most transparent administration in History
Cato Institute

We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.
Boston Globe

I have visited all 57 states.
Snopes

I’ll get rid of earmarks
Source: Any bill passed during presidency

When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it.
Campaign Speech

My father served in World War II.
The Videos and the Facts

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009
News Video

Seniors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes
YouTube

Would not vote for any bill supporting troop funding without a firm withdrawal commitment from the Bush Administration.
He has done nothing but continue the Bush admins strategy and to explain how the “surges total failure” has now become his greatest achievement.

Present Votes Are Common In Illinois
NPR

I Won Michigan
Huffington Post

I won Nevada
The Nation

I don’t Have Lobbyists
US News

My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad
Crooks and Liars

I Have Always Been Against Iraq
Washington Post

My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country
CNN

Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
Obama Campaign Video

I Barely Know Rezko
Sun Times

My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church
ABC News

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

 

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

Posted by

SAM HANANEL

 

 

Richard Cordray stands left as President Barack Obama announces in the State…

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive’s powers to make recess appointments.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.

When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.

“The decision is novel and unprecedented,” Carney said. “It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations.”

Under the court’s decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.

The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. “We disagree with the court’s ruling and believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound,” the statement said.

The court acknowledged that the ruling conflicts with what some other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.

“I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia’s University of Richmond. “The court’s reading has limited the president’s ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration.”

The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate case.

Carney insisted the court’s ruling affects only a single case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray’s appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.

The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.

Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The three-judge panel flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed that the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, 2012, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Sentelle’s opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

“With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as “a victory for accountability in government.”

If the ruling stands, it would invalidate more than 600 board decisions issued over the past year. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa called the ruling “a radical departure from precedent” and argued that Obama had no choice but to act.

“Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board’s legal authority to act,” Harkin said.

If Obama’s recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.

 

Democrats may stand in Obama’s way on gun measures

 

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

 

Posted by

ERICA WERNER

 

 

WASHINGTON — As the Senate prepares to begin debating new gun control measures, some of President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats are poised to frustrate his efforts to enact the most sweeping limits on weapons in decades.

These Democrats from largely rural states with strong gun cultures view Obama’s proposals warily and have not committed to supporting them. The lawmakers’ concerns could stand in the way of strong legislation before a single Republican gets a chance to vote “no.”

“There’s a core group of Democratic senators, most but not all from the West, who represent states with a higher-than-average rate of gun ownership but an equally strong desire to feel their kids are safe,” said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “They’re having hard but good conversations with people back home to identify the middle-ground solutions that respect the Second Amendment but make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on guns.”

All eyes are on these dozen or so Democrats, some of whom face re-election in 2014. That includes Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings Wednesday.

Interest groups, lobbyists, lawmakers, crime victims and others with a stake in the outcome will be watching these senators closely for signals about what measures they might support. The answers will say a lot about what, if anything, Congress can pass in the wake of the shootings of 20 school and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last month.

At issue are Obama’s proposals to ban assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines, crack down on trafficking and require universal background checks. Leading the charge against those ideas is the National Rifle Association. The group wields enormous power to rally public sentiment and is a particular threat to Democrats in pro-gun states who face re-election.

The political concerns of Democrats create problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has his own history with the NRA.

The powerful gun lobby endorsed him in previous elections, but stayed neutral in his most recent race, in 2010. Even before Obama announced the gun proposals this month, Reid told a Nevada PBS station that an assault weapons ban would have a hard time getting through Congress. That comment irked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., author of such a ban.

“Clearly it wasn’t helpful,” she said this past week in reintroducing her measure. But Feinstein’s original assault weapons ban was a stern political lesson for Reid and other Democrats. Its passage as part of President Bill Clinton‘s crime bill in 1994 was blamed for Democratic election losses that year after the NRA campaigned against lawmakers who supported the legislation. When the assault weapons ban came up for renewal in 2004, Congress, under pressure from the NRA, refused to extend it.

Reid has pledged action on gun measures. “This is an issue we’re not going to run from,” he said. But he’s under pressure from all sides.

Some major pieces of legislation are shepherded by the Senate leadership to the Senate floor. But Reid is promising that the gun bills will go through the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter.

Reid also is promising an open amendment process, potentially a lengthy endeavor. Those signals have some gun control activists concerned that the process will go so slowly that it will grind to a halt without action. Some question whether that’s just the outcome desired by some moderate Democrats.

“I’m concerned just because Harry Reid has a mixed record on these things and we want him to be a champion,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

On the other side, the NRA, known for rewarding friends and punishing enemies, promises it will be closely watching Reid, too.

“He’s going to be torn and a lot of people are going to be torn, particularly Democrats, but I think as the debate goes on he’ll do more good than bad from our perspective,” said David Keene, NRA president. “All this stuff has been debated before and once you get into a debate and a discussion and say will this do anything to protect children, to prevent another Newtown, I think the answer is going to come out `no.'”

Baucus, Begich, Pryor and others have been cautious in their comments on Obama’s gun proposals.

Baucus called for “a thoughtful debate.” Begich told his home state Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that passage of any element of the package was “a long haul. … There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right.” Pryor has told Arkansas media that efforts on gun safety should start with enforcing existing laws.

Another Democrat closely watching the issue is Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, known for a 2010 campaign ad where he fired a rifle shot though a copy of Democratic-written climate change legislation. Manchin recently told a West Virginia radio station that he’s working on legislation to require background checks on most gun purchases. Details weren’t clear but that’s the area where advocates are most hopeful of finding a solution that could get through the Senate and possibly even the Republican-controlled House.

The NRA generally opposes legislation mandating universal background checks and disputes gun control groups’ claims that 40 percent of purchases happen without such checks. NRA officials question whether background checks could be done effectively in a way that makes a difference and doesn’t disrupt legitimate sales.

The NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, is to testify Wednesday before Leahy’s committee.

Democrats, especially those from gun-rights states, will be weighing whether to side with the NRA or follow the president, or how best to split the difference.

“We’re a Second-Amendment state. I support the rights of sportsmen and target shooters and collectors to own firearms. It’s an important part of our culture and tradition,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said in an interview. “But I just hear there’s such grave concern given the experiences we’ve had with Aurora, Columbine … people all over Colorado want to prevent these massacres.”

___

 

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

4) I welcome input from all walks of life. However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”. However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives. Thank you for visiting!

This is a Reblogged from New American.

Posted by

William F. Jasper
Jan 25, 2013

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”

Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.

As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:

The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.

More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:

Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.

“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”

Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!

And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.

Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.

Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.

The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.

We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.OBAMA IS TRYING TO SET UP

AGAIN the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with FREAKIN HUNTING. It is to protect the American citizens against the tyrannical GOVERNMENT THAT  obama is trying to set up. He needs to be IMPEACHED NOW! Run out of Washington DC.