Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the month “February, 2013”

PETITION URGING CONGRESS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA


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 WND.

 

Posted by

 

PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

 

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Barack Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

Whereas, Obama has – in clear-cut violation of his oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” imposed by Article II of the Constitution – refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed into law in 1996 under President Bill Clinton;

Whereas, Obama usurped the authority of Congress by issuing an executive order in June 2012 declaring that illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and who are younger than 30 would not be deported – essentially duplicating the DREAM Act which failed to pass in Congress;

Whereas, Obama made several recess appointments in January 2012 while the Senate was still officially in session, actions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled violated the Constitution because they weren’t made when the Senate was in recess;

Whereas, Whereas, the Obama administration’s multi-faceted scandal in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, is not only proof of what legal experts call tremendous “deceit” on the part of Obama and his top team, but a serious constitutional violation as well;

Whereas, Whereas, numerous other constitutional outrages characterize Obama’s presidency – from his administration’s abuses of citizens’ civil rights under cover of the PATRIOT Act; to the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute the worst case of voter intimidation in modern times, perpetrated by club-wielding New Black Panthers; to Obama’s appointment of more than 30 unelected “czars” to positions in federal agencies when the Constitution requires such appointments be vetted by Congress; and other instances of clear contempt for Congress, the Constitution and the American people:

SIGN THE PETITION

Therefore, Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama, with particular focus on the illegal war against Libya and the illegal “kill list” of U.S. citizens – offenses universally condemned by top constitutional experts as both unprecedented and unquestionably impeachable. For members of Congress, who have also sworn solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flaunt the Supreme Law of the Land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free people.

 

Advertisements

NRA uses Justice memo to accuse Obama on guns


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 http://www.whitehouse.gov.

 

Posted by ALAN FRAM

(AP) FILE – In this Jan. 28, 2013, file photo President Barack Obama meets to discuss administration…
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) – The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won’t work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration – ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.

The NRA’s assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington‘s fight over gun restrictions heats up.

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales.It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

(AP) National Rifle Association President David Keene speaks at the John F. Kennedy Jr. forum at Harvard…
Full Image

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.

Justice Department and White House officials declined to provide much information about the memo or answer questions about it on the record.

The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself “a cursory summary” and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not release it officially.

(AP) Vice President Joe Biden gestures as he speaks at a gun violence conference in Danbury, Conn.,…
Full Image

But the NRA has posted the memo on one of its websites and cites it in advertising aimed at whipping up opposition to Obama’s efforts to contain gun violence. The ad says the paper shows that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration” – ideas the president has not proposed or expressed support for.

“Still think President Obama’s proposals sound reasonable?” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief Washington lobbyist, says in the ad.

Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama’s proposals “would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry.

A Justice Department official who would only discuss the issue on condition of anonymity said the NRA ad misrepresents Obama’s gun proposals and that the administration has never backed a gun registry or gun confiscation.

While the memo’s analysis of gun curb proposals presents no new findings, it is unusual for a federal agency document to surface that raises questions about a president’s plans during debate on a high-profile issue such as restricting firearms.

Obama wants to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines exceeding 10 rounds that are produced in the future. He wants universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases. Today, checks are only mandatory on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not transactions at gun shows or other private sales.

His plan also includes tougher federal laws against gun trafficking and straw purchases, which occur when a person legally buys a firearm but sells it to a criminal or someone else barred from owning a weapon.

Like Fast and Furious?

Interest in the gun issue has intensified since the December shootings in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at an elementary school. The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee plans to write legislation addressing some of Obama’s proposals in the next week or two.

The NRA’s Cox declined to say how his organization obtained the memo.

He said the commercial is running online in 15 states, including many Republican-leaning states where Democrats will defend Senate seats next year, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. There are also ads in papers in five states.

The memo was written under the name of Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department’s research arm. It is dated Jan. 4, nearly two weeks before Obama announced his plan for restricting guns, and Ridgeway’s first day as acting chief.

Justice Department officials said Ridgeway was not granting interviews. He came to the institute last July from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution where he studied criminal justice issues, and has a Ph.D. in statistics.

The memo says straw purchases and gun thefts are the largest sources of firearms used in crimes, and that such transactions “would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.”

Gun control supporters said the NRA ad and the Justice memo don’t mention that the current federal background check system blocked gun sales to 2.1 million criminals and others barred from owning guns between 1994, when the checks began, and 2010. Also ignored is that Obama has proposed cracking down on straw purchases to prevent a growth in illegal transactions, they said.

Advocates of restricting guns also said the memo omitted mention of several studies that affirm the effectiveness of firearms curbs. These include a 2010 police group analysis showing more than one-third of police departments found increased criminal use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the 2004 expiration of the ban on those items.

“It doesn’t appear to be a serious discussion of gun violence prevention policy, never mind an expression of administration policy,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

The memo says that out of 11,000 annual gun homicides, an average of 35 deaths yearly are from mass shootings, defined as those with four or more victims.

“Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings,” it says.

It says there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons before the 10-year ban on those firearms began in 1994, so their sheer number would weaken a new ban exempting existing weapons. Such guns accounted for just 2 percent to 8 percent of crimes before the 1994 ban, so eliminating assault weapons “would not have a large impact on gun homicides,” the memo said.

Recent data on the assault weapons ban impact is scarce because since the 1990s, Congress has blocked most federal research on the effect that firearms have on public health. As part of the gun restrictions Obama proposed last month, he ordered federal scientific agencies to research gun violence.


Online:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

National Rifle Association: http://home.nra.org

 

Obamas Dr. Ben Carson Problem


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 Political Pistachio.

 

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Dr. Ben Carson is not your typical (as the liberal left sees the world) white, racist, right-wing, extremist, religious-nut, gun clinging, Bible-thumping, conservative maniac.

Author


The Democrat Party has hoisted Barack Obama up as some kind of liberal, god-like, superhero.  Barry has been very happy to fill the britches of such a false god, but as some kind of anti-hero that, armed with his arrogance, can destroy federal budgets with a single bound.  To the horror of Republicans, even no-nos like gun control and stomping all over freedom of religion has proven to be areas this president is willing go after.  Like every cloud-skipping false-prophet, however, Barry Sotero has his own kind of Kryptonite.

In the case of Barack Obama, the thing that can bring him down, make him falter in mid-air, and drop him miserably to his political knees, is anyone that is willing to articulate American values, and do it in his face.

While the Republicans run around in circles trying to figure out a way to co-exist with the democrats, and their presidential messiah, Dr. Ben Carson took a stab into the side of Barack Obama, and his ultra-liberal policies, with a single speech at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast.  Obama’s balloon began to whistle as the air came rushing out of his ego.  How dare this man embarrass our king, err, uhh, messiah, err, uhh, president like this.  How dare he!

Dr. Ben Carson is not your typical (as the liberal left sees the world) white, racist, right-wing, extremist, religious-nut, gun clinging, Bible-thumping, conservative maniac.  In fact, Dr. Carson isn’t even a white republican.  He, to the amazement of the democrats, is an honest, God-fearing, common sense American that was willing to simply take Obama to the mat, and expose Barack Obama for the leftist ideologue, and coward, that he really is.

After Dr. Carson’s speech, a giant sigh released somewhere in the conservative stratosphere.  “Yeah,” the TEA Party folks, and the Constitutionalists, and the conservatives cried out.  “That is what I have meant all along!  I just didn’t know how to say it.”

Dr. Carson doesn’t even really consider himself a conservative.  In fact, I am sure that on some issues he may not be one hundred percent in line with the conservative narrative.  But, conservative or not, he articulated conservatism in such a manner that Barack Obama, the democrats, and the liberal media did not know how to respond, at first.

Common Sense sometimes does that to people.

Well, the liberal left can’t have somebody walking around making their favorite son look bad.  As they did with Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney, they have got to make Dr. Benjamin Carson look like a fool.  They know, in their dark little hearts, that they need to do all they can to stop this guy before he does something, or says something else, really damaging to their collectivist cause.

And Dr. Benjamin Carson being black, but viewing himself not as a race, but as an American, makes it all the more difficult.

The liberal media immediately took up the task.

The liberal left is in absolute hysterics over Dr. Ben Carson’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast because, in addition to making sense to a lot of people, and daring to challenge Barack Obama to his face, in his presence, he weighed in on one particular topic that he knows more about than Barack Obama, exposing Obama for the unknowing fool that he is.

The Holy Grail of liberalism has always been health care, and Carson, a prominent pediatric surgeon from Johns Hopkins University, knows a little something about the subject too.

Dr. Ben Carson said, taking on taxation right out of the gate, “What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he’s given us a system. It’s called a tithe. We don’t necessarily have to do 10% but it’s the principle. He didn’t say if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one.”

Then Dr. Carson turned on health care: “Here’s my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you’re born ‘til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you’re 85 years old and you got six diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything. You’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels.

“Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don’t have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.”

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky went so far as to comment that it was “… not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech and to invoke God as his support for that kind of point of view.”

Am I right?  Did she say God was not an appropriate thing to mention at a National Prayer Breakfast?  Who were they praying to, then?  Barack Obama?

As for the political end of it, every time Obama opens his mouth it serves as an opportunity to politicize whatever it is he is targeting.  Just ask every group of grieving parents after mass shootings, or or the families of dead heroes coming home with flags draped over their coffins.

What Dr. Ben Carson did was publicly challenge Obama’s policies, and do so in the context of faith. For liberal Democrats, such articulation of conservatism is blasphemous.  Disagreement, and doing so in a way that can damage one’s opponent, is not a luxury allowed to non-liberal political types.  Opposition to liberalism is especially not permitted when the offender dares to use their faith to disagree.  And what is worse, Dr. Carson was willing to use a tool that no politician has used since anyone can remember. . . The Truth.

The “God-Thing” is what really has the liberal left in a tizzy.  They use “religion” all of the time to support their policies of entitlement, calling such programs a kind of “charity.”  Barack Obama has told us straight out that God approves of his health care policies, because it is all about “social justice,” and as Barry has put it, being our brother’s keeper.  Obama, even, in 2009 to a crowd of raging liberal religious-types, proclaimed that, “We are God’s partner in matters of life and death.”

Never mind that he’s got that whole brother’s keeper thing screwed up, or that murdering thousands of unborn babies a day hardly seems like the work of a group of people in line with God’s plan. . . it seems more like the work of folks in league with somebody else.

Of course, if a republican says anything about God in reference to politics, the “separation of church and state” slogan comes flying across the room, and slaps that conservative evil-doer right upside the head.

Two years ago, coincidentally at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama stood before the huddled masses and proclaimed, “But sometimes what I can do to try to improve the economy or to curb foreclosures or to help deal with the healthcare system — sometimes it seems so distant and so remote, so profoundly inadequate to the enormity of the need. And it is my faith, then, that biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going and that keeps me from being overwhelmed.”

“AMEN, Brother!” must have been the uproarious response inside the heads of the liberal faithful in attendance.

Brother?  Or did they say in those skulls of mush, “Messiah!”?

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, or any other liberal democrat, didn’t say anything about that being an inappropriate thing to say at a National Prayer Breakfast back then.  In fact, Obama had no problem making that kind of political speech, and invoking God, to support his kind of point of view Not a single liberal cried out, “Wait a second, buddy.  What about that separation of church and state thing?”

Such a tactic is nothing new to Obama.  He has invoked his supposed faith, and his misunderstandings of the Bible, not only on behalf of healthcare reform, but on the behalf of gay marriage, and a litany of other liberal agenda items, as well.

And then, here comes along the way at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013, Dr. Ben Carson, pediatric surgeon, and a man that dares challenge the liberal saint of health care, and social justice.  How dare he.  How dare he challenge the great and powerful Barack Obama, and do so to his face, and in the presence of the liberal faithful.

Dr. Ben Carson took it to Obama, aiming his arrow of truth directly at the liberal president’s health care law, at the National Prayer Breakfast, and the good doctor did it with more than just the truth – he sent that arrow on a trajectory straight and true of common sense.  How dare he.  How dare he go after the young messiah that sits behind the presidential seal, with a teleprompter nearby to ensure he remembers the holy word.

The liberal media is angry.  I am surprised they didn’t start turning tables right there in the room as Dr. Carson spewed his opposition to President Obama’s holy work.

They did something else.  As Paul Kengor at the American Spectator put it, Dr. Ben Carson’s price for daring to challenge President Obama was “… political excommunication and denunciation. In Alinsky fashion, he must now be isolated and demonized. The Religious Left grabs its stones to cast them at the good doctor. How dare Ben Carson mention healthcare at the National Prayer Breakfast! How dare he disagree with Obama!”

The conservatives poured into the streets.  “Finally, someone not too afraid to challenge Obama has spoken up.  Finally, we have seen someone that can articulate conservatism in a manner that wipes that smug sneer right off Barack’s arrogant face.  Finally, someone with a brass pair.”

“Why, this guy ought to be,” cried out the celebrating conservatives, “our next President!”

Dr. Ben Carson, being the humble man of God that he is, smiled, nodded, and said, “I’ll leave that up to God.”

That’s the one and true God, he was referring to.  Not the false, pseudo-demigod in Washington DC, mind you.

The Stoning of Dr. Ben Carson – The American Spectator

Dr. Benjamin Carson Addresses National Prayer Breakfast, Criticizes Obamacare – RealClearPolitics


Now Media Matters Targets Ben Carson
– World Net Daily

A call for the Ben Carson Network – Canada Free Press

Dr. Ben Carson for President? ‘I’ll Leave That Up To God’ – Yahoo! News

Douglas V. Gibbs, Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary,  is a Radio Host on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturdays and Sundays with his Constitution Speaker program, as well as a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug is the founder of the award winning Political Pistachio website, and a free lance newspaper columnist for the Murrieta Patch, The Central Idaho Post and The Examiner. Doug is a member of the “American Authors Association”, the “Committee of Concerned Journalists” and “The Military Writers Society of America.” He received the Golden Anchor Award for his patriotic commentary in 2008, and was a candidate for his local city council in 2010. An active member of the Tea Party Movement, Doug mans a Constitution Booth at Tea Party events, is a public speaker on the U.S. Constitution, and teaches classes on the U.S. Constitution once a week in Temecula, California. Doug is a family man, married 27 years to his high school sweetheart. He is the father of two and has four grandchildren. Doug is a proud United States Navy veteran. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

FORGET SHOTGUNS! WHY YOU NEED SEMI-AUTO RIFLES


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 WND.

 

Expert outlines scenarios where Americans must have ‘lots of rounds’

Gun Discussion

Gun-control advocates are pushing new legislation to limit the types of weapons that can be purchased and the number of rounds in a magazine, but a top gun safety instructor says he can easily envision why someone would need those laws to remain as they are.

Rob Pincus is the owner of the I.C.E Training Company, where has trained countless people in the responsible use of firearms and even creates videos that explain how best to respond to crises like a school shooting.

Pincus also has strong opinions on issues like concealed carry and women carrying weapons, but he clearly disagrees with the repeated contentions of Vice President Joe Biden that no one needs semiautomatic weapons or large-capacity ammunition magazines.

“I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would need to have a lot of rounds. I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would need to have the capability of controlling those rounds through a semiautomatic rifle where I can fire those rounds quickly and accurately,” Pincus told WND. “Multiple person home invasions would be an easy example that could obviously happen to any home in any part of the country. Those things are very rare, and that’s what those on the anti-gun side play on is the idea that those scenarios are very, very rare and most would would love to think that it could never happen to them. But because those situations are possible, the good news is that in America we have the right and the option to have those higher capacity magazines and to have the semiautomatic military-style rifles in our homes.”

So how does Pincus react to Biden’s suggestion that a couple of warning blasts from a shotgun would be an equally effective deterrent?

“Not only is teaching someone to shoot a shotgun into the air a reckless act in and of itself, it’s also dependent upon the person psychologically being stopped and not actually being able to follow through based on just their will to fight,” Pincus said. “Well, if every bad guy we were going to try to defend ourselves from was a coward, that works great. If we have one of these spree killers, if some have someone who is intent through a home invasion to hurt someone, they’re not likely to simply be scared away by the sound of a shotgun.”

The renewed political debate over guns is triggering another spike in the interest of Americans in owning guns. Pincus said if this were a result of existing gun owners adding to their numbers, then his business wouldn’t be any busier. But he said the bulk of the new interest is from first-time buyers.

“The reason we’re busier is because people who are new to firearms or people who are just now thinking about the fact that the firearm could be their best defensive option in the home or outside of the home are out looking for training. They’re looking for an education, and that’s why they come to I.C.E. training company,” Pincus said. “And it’s not just the last few months. It’s really been over the last several years that we’ve seen more and more new firearms owners, people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who didn’t grow up with guns who are looking for valid information geared toward defensive shooting.”

Pincus is closely following the gun debate in Washington and in states across the country. He was especially incensed by the contention of Democratic Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar that women shouldn’t carry guns on campus because they might end up shooting someone who isn’t actually a threat.

“The idea that a woman is going to carry a firearm and accidentally shoot someone because she perceives being threatened when she’s really not, honestly, I find that to be a very typically condescending argument. Unfortunately, it comes from the political side that has fought for women’s rights,” Pincus said. “To be demeaning toward a woman – as if the fact she’s now trained and responsibly carrying a firearm is going to make her judgment fail or is going to put her in a position where she is going to panic – honestly, I find quite the opposite to be true. The women who are realizing they have a right and responsibility for personal protection and are getting the training and who are more aware of their surroundings are much less likely to panic and [they’ll] make the proper decision.”

Pincus strongly endorses concealed carry laws and said there is no doubt criminals are less likely to approach someone if there’s a chance their intended victim is armed. During the interview, he also outlined the type of training he provides and what steps people can take in mass shooting situations to minimize the killings.

He also offered some parting advice to lawmakers in Washington and at other levels of government as the gun debate proceeds.

“Being a responsible firearms owner means that you’re going to make sure that the firearms don’t get into the wrong hands. You’re going to secure your firearms. We’re going to go through the background checks. We’re going to make sure that wrong people don’t have easy access to firearms,” Pincus said. “We’re going to make sure that the right people, the people who want to be responsibly armed and who want to get the training and who want to be capable of protecting themselves, their family, their home, their community, under the Constitution maybe protecting our country with the training and the tools that they’ve gotten.”

He added, “The best thing we can do is preach responsibility and not restrictions.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/forget-shotguns-why-you-need-semi-auto-rifles/#dHqOBHYVp0x9lRF8.99

 

Proposed design of NC illegal immigrant licenses sparks concern


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 FoxNews.com.

 

 

  • nclicensestory.jpg

    Feb. 22, 2013: A new North Carolina driver’s license set to be issued to some illegal immigrants has a bright pink stripe and the bold words “NO LAWFUL STATUS,” is shown.AP

RALEIGH, N.C. – A new driver’s license expected to be issued to some illegal immigrants in North Carolina has prompted state lawmakers and immigrant rights groups to voice concerns over the proposal.

The proposed North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles license has a bright pink stripe and the bold words “NO LAWFUL STATUS.”

The North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles announced last week they would begin issuing the licenses March 25 following a lengthy legal review. The Obama administration‘s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program grants valid federal work permits to qualified applicants brought to the U.S. as children without legal authorization.

Some Republican lawmakers in the state have balked at the idea, filing a bill Thursday to bar the DMV from granting the licenses until at least June.

Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page told MyFox8.com that the licenses will benefit participants in the DACA program, since officers are required to take a person into custody if he or she were breaking the law and had no form of identification.

“If he has an identification, there’s a better chance he’s going to get a citation or a warning and sent on his way versus ending up at the magistrate’s office and ending up in the local jail,” Page told the station.

“This will save both the DACA immigrants and law enforcement officers time and money,” he said.

Cinthia Marroquin, a 22-year-old Raleigh resident awaiting approval for a DACA permit, said the longer the license issue is delayed, the longer it will take for her to get a job and drive herself to work. Even if she is able to get one, she is worried about presenting a license declaring she has “NO LAWFUL STATUS” at a police roadblock or while writing a check at the grocery store.

“A lot of us are just scared,” said Marroguin, who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 15. “We just want to be able to get a job and drive to work. Having that license is just going to show everybody you’re here illegally, just buying a beer or writing a check. You don’t know how people might react.”

You could have gone back and applied thru proper channels

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina also takes issue with the designation.

“North Carolina should not be making it harder for aspiring citizens to integrate and contribute to our communities by branding them with a second-class driver’s license,” said ACLU attorney Raul Pinto. “There is simply no reason for officials to stigmatize people who are in the U.S. legally with an unnecessary marker that could lead to harassment, confusion, and racial profiling.”

Almost from the moment President Barack Obama announced the program in June, states across the country grappled with how and whether to issue driver’s licenses to those granted legal presence.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is up to officials in each state to make their own determination about what to do. Many states, such as Oregon and Georgia, have announced that they will grant driving privileges to those eligible.

In Arizona, where Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has pledged that DACA youths will not get driver’s licenses, the state’s DMV still lists federal work permits among the documents making people eligible for one.

The issue is especially politically charged in North Carolina, where current state law ordains a driver’s license will be issued to anyone who holds valid federal documentation of their “legal presence” in the United States.

The office of the state’s Democratic attorney general in an opinion last month said that under federal law, DACA participants have a “legal presence,” even if they do not have “lawful status.” Therefore, state law requires that DACA participants be granted licenses. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration of agreed, announcing last week the DMV would begin issuing the licenses.

That has upset many conservatives in McCrory’s own party, including Rep. Mark Brody (R-Union). He is one of four freshmen legislators who introduced a bill Thursday to bar DMV from issuing licenses to DACA participants before June 15, potentially giving time to craft a permanent change to state law.

Brody said he believes strongly that the DACA program violated the U.S. Constitution because it was implemented without congressional approval. Obama said last year he was forced to take executive action by the decades-long failure of Congress to consider meaningful immigration reform.

“We need a time out,” said Brody, a construction contractor. “We don’t need to have the federal government dictating to us how we are supposed to issue licenses in this state. We do it, and that’s a privilege we have under our Constitution.”

Among the concerns raised by Brody and other bill sponsors is that illegal immigrants might use their new licenses to access social programs or register to vote, despite the bright pink markings. An extensive 2011 review of the state’s 6.4 million registered voters by the N.C. Board of Elections found 12 instances were a non-citizen successfully cast a ballot.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/24/pink-stripe-proposal-for-nc-illegal-immigrant-licenses-sparks-debate/#ixzz2LsOmgk00

 

Weighing the Gun Control Argument


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 http://www.americanthinker.com.

 

Posted by William Sullivan

     It is a bit misleading to call our current national discussion about gun control a “debate.”  Simply put, politicians and the media directing the discussion aren’t interested in evidence or conclusions contrary to those that they have a vested interest in disseminating.  They are interested merely in silencing any opposition, and they rely on their devoted acolytes to continue empowering them to do so.

It’s about belief for these acolytes, not proof.  Because they believe in the moral imperative, whether or not facts support their beliefs is unimportant.  They just blindly accept that what they’ve been told is true, and they look upon those who believe otherwise as dangerous heretics.

Yet in a somewhat intellectually quixotic self-perception, these gun-control zealots declare themselves the rational thinkers on the subject and believe their conclusions infallible, despite the fact that the hypotheses to which they are so devoted are rarely measured in the crucible of evidence.

Consider the most basic of their arguments — that access to guns needs to be restricted by the government, because access to guns is the most convincing variable that determines murder rates in our society.  Let’s just briefly weigh that assertion in the balance, and see how well it holds up to scrutiny. 

In 1960, data suggests that there were roughly 77.5 million guns owned by a population of just over 179 million, meaning that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.3 guns per 10 Americans.  In that year, the murder rate in America was roughly 5.1 per 100,000 Americans. 

Fast-forward to 2009.  According to a Congressional Research Service report by William J. Krouse, 310 million guns were owned by Americans in that year by a population estimated to be 307 million, meaning there were probably more guns in America than there were Americans.

Now pause a moment, and remember that gun-control advocates contend that there exists a positive correlation between the number of readily accessible guns and the number of murders.  If true, we might expect such a surge in gun ownership (and guns that are owned are as readily accessible as guns get) to yield a much higher murder rate.  But in fact, the murder rate was lower in 2009 than in 1960 — at 5.0 per 100,000 Americans.   

Such inconsistency and an obviously flawed hypothesis might send a reasonable person back to the drawing board.  But gun control zealots just double down and get more specific.  Currently, the fashionable tactic is to appear a bit centrist by suggesting that it’s not all guns or the Second Amendment that they oppose, but rather just those scary looking semi-automatic guns people call “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  No one needs that kind of gun, and no one needs to fire that many bullets, they argue.

In terms of the practical purpose of the Second Amendment — that is, the preservation of individual liberty — it should be obvious, as I have argued before, why such weapons and such payloads are essential, and explicit in the verbiage of the Second Amendment is unquestionable proof that the federal government has no legal right to infringe upon a law-abiding American’s right to own them.  But since it is a common objection among the left that supporters of gun rights cling to their archaic Constitution (or that “little book,” as Piers Morgan calls it), rather than just accepting the idea that a new assault weapons ban would curtail violence, let’s examine a bit of data surrounding their claim.

That data can tell a pretty simple story to those willing to hear it.  The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and in that year, the murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 Americans.  In 2011, that murder rate had declined to 4.7 per 100,000 Americans, which, incidentally, is the lowest murder rate in nearly four decades.  If the laws banning “assault weapons” were so incredibly effective, why have murder rates significantly fallen since it expired?  Not only did the federal government lift laws restricting “assault weapons,” but since then, many states expanded “concealed carry” rights, meaning that guns were all the more prevalent in public life during these years, with both criminals and the law-abiding being totally aware of that fact — and the result was a lower murder rate.

This is not to say the data shows a constant trend opposite of the one that gun control advocates suggest.  Murder rates have vacillated in big swings throughout the years, sometimes rising, sometimes falling, despite the fact that gun ownership has steadily increased.  Therefore, we must accept that more guns don’t always result in less murder, either, in terms of the data.  The point, however, is that the primary hypotheses that are the foundation of current gun control arguments are fatally flawed.  Neither the presence of guns (whether semi-automatic or outfitted with a large payload) nor the laws restricting them (which lawless murderers invariably ignore) are the most convincing variable that determines rates of murder in this country.    

It would certainly be valuable to have a discussion about how we can best reduce incidents of murder in America.  But it should be a discussion based upon reason, not emotional agendas to rob Americans of their fundamental liberties based upon specious and unsubstantiated arguments.  There are far more convincing variables to explain high rates of murder, whether we’re talking about large quantities of unheralded murders or isolated and sensationalized killing sprees.  And regarding the latter, considering that it has recently surfaced that Adam Lanza’s likely motivation for the massacre in Newtown was to surpass Oslo spree-killer Anders Breivik in notoriety, it might make sense that we examine the practical impact of the self-centered nature of our culture that values celebrity above all things.  And maybe it is a good idea to address the media’s sensationalism of the actions of demented spree-killers like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, Anders Breivik, and Aurora shooter James Holmes, all of whom were granted larger-than-life notoriety by the media for their actions.

But at these suggestions, gun control advocates generally return full circle to that flawed argument with which we began — that fewer guns and more gun control are the answer to curtail murder in America.  It’s as if the above-mentioned data roundly disproving the claim never existed, and they go on arguing their hypothesis in other ways, like comparing this place that has gun control to that place that doesn’t.

For example, gun-control advocates are very quick to point out that England has a lower murder rate than America and extremely restrictive gun control laws.  Notably absent from these keen observations, however, is the multitude of comparisons where the opposite is true, such as a comparison between America and, say, Russia, which has extremely strict gun control laws and few guns, but a murder rate that eclipses our own.

Of course, they generally neglect to use domestic examples, too, and with good reason — the opposite of their contention is almost invariably true in domestic comparisons.  Urban areas, for example, typically have stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership than rural areas, yet they have much higher murder rates.  And then there is the glaring example of Obama’s hometown, Chicago, which proudly touts its extremely progressive gun control laws while owning the highest murder rate in the nation.  But that doesn’t stop the devout masses from cheering in passionate agreement when the president suggests, with a repetitive cadence that would make Goebbels proud, that Chicago-style gun regulation be applied federally.

The implication of such ignorance is too grave to find any humor in that sad irony. 

The hypothesis we should be discussing is that cultural factors are much more convincing variables correlating to murder rates.  Take the consideration that widespread poverty and unemployment could have potentially contributed to the spike in murder rates in the late seventies, or that the proliferation of a culture of gang violence likely contributed to the sustained high murder rates in the early nineties, or the possibility that our current culture of celebrity and sensationalized violence is perhaps now leading to isolated spree-killing endeavors, if one is to take Adam Lanza’s supposed motive into consideration.

If there is to be any progress in the gun control “debate,” America must forego the commonly held fallacy that gun regulations upon the law-abiding will regulate the lawless.  Until then, we may be doomed to have reasonable arguments against gun control fall on deaf ears.

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/weighing_the_gun_control

_argument.html#ixzz2LqYSbwFq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

BOB WOODWARD: A ‘Very Senior’ White House Person Warned Me I’d ‘Regret’ What I’m Doing


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 http://www.businessinsider.com.

 

Posted by Brett LoGiurato

|Bob Woodward

Wikimedia/Bektour

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

“It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘You’re going to regret doing something that you believe in,'” Woodward said.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward said of the White House’s pushback on his reporting.

Earlier today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Woodward ripped into Obamain what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?'” Woodward said on MSNBC

“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need?'” Or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ … because of some budget document?”

Last weekend, Woodward called out Obama for what he said was “moving the goal posts on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2#ixzz2MA6J15MT

 

Obama’s 2009 Tax Return Says Harrison J Bounel


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.reagancoalition.com.

 

  Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly today.

The case in question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly Taitz. The case calls into question many of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not have received the State’s electoral votes.

Four of the nine Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.

Meantime, on Feb. 4, Kathleen O’Leary, presiding judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal, reinstated the appeal of Taitz v. Obama et al filed by Taitz when she ran for Senate. That case involves evidence of 1.5 million invalid voter registrations in the State of California. The appeal also involves Obama’s lack of legitimacy to hold the office of President based on his forged IDs, stolen Connecticut Social Security number, the fact the last name he’s using is not legally his and his fraudulent claim to be the U.S. citizen.

Evidence in the case includes:

  • A certified copy of the passport records of Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, showing her son’s legal last name to be Soebarkah, not Obama.
  • Obama’s school records from Indonesia, showing his citizenship to be Indonesian.
  • Sworn affidavits of top law enforcement experts and investigators, showing Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service certificate are forgeries and that the Social Security number used by Obama on his 2009 tax returns as posted on WhiteHouse.gov was fraudulent. (The SSN failed when checked through both E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service.)

On another legal front, Obama defaulted in the case of Grinols et al v. Obama et al on Jan. 30 when he failed to file a response within 21 days of being served notice of the suit. This case also involves Obama’s phony SSN.

The suit states:

[I]nvestigator Albert Hendershot found in the database of http://www.acxiom.com/identity-solutions/acxiom-identity-batch-solutions/ the name of the individual whose Social Security Obama is using. Acxciom-batch-solutions showed (Exhibit 1) that Harry J Bounel with the same Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 at 5046 S Greenwood Ave in Chicago, home address of Barack Obama, Database shows Bounel with the same address and Social Security number as Barack Obama himself. According to the databases last changes to the information on Harrison (Harry) J Bounel were made in and around November 2009 by Michelle Obama, who is listed as Bounel’s relative. Database changes can involve entering the information or deletion of information. It appears that changes made by relative Michelle Obama included deletion of information, which was done at a time when Taitz brought to Federal court in the Central District of California before Judge David O. Carter a case of election challenge by her client, former U.S. ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and 40 state Representatives and high ranked members of the U.S. military.

Recently obtained results of the 1940 census, Exhibit 2, provided the last missing link, link (sic) between Harry J. Bounel and the date of birth of 1890. Exhibit 2 shows the printout of the U.S. census, showing Harry J Bounel, immigrant from Russia, residing at 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, NY, age 50 during the 1940 census, meaning he was born in 1890, as shown in the affidavit of Investigators Daniels and Sankey.

There is a pattern of Obstruction of Justice and tampering with the official records and falsification/forgery of the official records related to Obama. This happens in particular when [George W.] Bush employees leave their positions and are replaced by Obama appointees.

Taitz has asked for expedited default judgment and post judgment discovery in this case out of fear that any records on hand at the Social Security office will be destroyed when George W. Bush-appointed Commissioner Michael Astrue leaves office in February. Records that might have proven Obama’s Selective Service registration was a forgery were destroyed in 2009 after Bush-appointed Selective Service Director William Chatfield resigned, Taitz alleges.

Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130226004-obama-2009-return.html#Xz7OT69hehTv7wAD.99

RUSH LIMBAUGH ON MICHELLE OBAMA: ‘BULLSH–!’


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 WND.

 

Posted by JOE KOVACS

‘It was all lies. She didn’t believe any of it’

PALM BEACH, Fla. – Radio host Rush Limbaugh has one particular word when it comes to Tuesday night’s address by first lady Michelle Obama: “Bullsh–!”

Limbaugh was watching Mrs. Obama’s speech with his own wife, Kathryn, when he heard Michelle say, “I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as ‘us’ and ‘them’ – he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above … he knows that we all love our country … and he’s always ready to listen to good ideas … he’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.”

Limbaugh explained this afternoon both he and his wife shared an instant vocal reaction as they listened.

“This actually happened,” he noted . “When [Michelle] was talking about how Obama doesn’t care if you’re a Republican or whatever, Kathryn and I both (at the exact moment) shouted, ‘Bullsh–!’ at the TV. We didn’t even look at each other. ‘Bullsh–!’ Tell that to Paul Ryan. Obama doesn’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat? For crying out loud, he’s the most partisan president we’ve ever had in office – and that’s saying something.”

Limbaugh actually had some words of praise for Obama’s address, calling it a “masterfully given speech.”

“Look, as a performer and judging it as a performance, it was exceptional. It was, as a performance, Michelle Obama’s speech was perfection,” he said. “Looked at through the prism of what she intended it to accomplish. It was flawlessly executed. It could not have been better in terms of performance. But it was all lies. She didn’t believe any of it. She didn’t believe anything that she said in that speech. It left me cold. It was a real contradiction.”

Limbaugh found it strange that after four years in the public limelight, Mrs. Obama decided to provide heretofore undisclosed details about who her husband is, as she explained: “When Barack was a senator and presidential candidate, to me he was still the guy who picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by in a hole in the passenger-side door. He was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was a half-size too small.”

“Oh, gee, poor guy,” said Limbaugh. “And his brother in the hut is still living that way. I wonder if Michelle’s ever seen his college transcripts. Do you think she has? Do you think she knows about his college transcripts or anything that he wrote, Law Review, Harvard. Her parents actually let her get in a car that had rusted out holes in the passenger-side door? Do we really believe that Obama’s proudest possession was a coffee table extricated from a dumpster dive? Sorry, folks, I just wasn’t buying.”

Limbaugh said Barack Obama did not grow up in poverty.

“Obama was working for a law firm when he started dating Michelle!” he exclaimed. “He wasn’t wearing shoes a half-size too small when he was dating Michelle Obama.”

“Obama was raised by a banker,” Limbaugh continued. “Obama went to the top private school in Hawaii. It had swimming pools and tennis courts. It had photo studios! They both attended elite schools. Michelle went to Whitney Young. Whitney Young was a public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class. That’s where Michelle went to school. Barack went to Punahou, which is the private prep school for the top strata of Hawaii society.

“Then they were both accepted to Ivy League schools despite having, uh, less-than-stellar credentials. You might say that they were affirmative-action admissions. But they didn’t come from poverty. So why is he wearing shoes a half-size too small? Does he not like to cut his toenails? What is the explanation?”

“They’ve revised the story,” he concluded. “It’s a new campaign. It’s time for a new story.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/rush-limbaugh-on-michelle-obama-bullsh/#iVLk36zr0qxtTLcF.99 

 

PALIN: WASHINGTON BUYING BULLETS FOR US


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 WND.

 

Posted by Garth Kant

 

 

‘We’re going to default eventually and that’s why feds are stockpiling’

sarah-palin

       Imagine the worst-case scenario if the sequester goes through. The market nosedives. The economy implodes. Empty shelves. Riots. The feds hit the streets in force to restore order in a “national emergency.”

Sounds like something in a Third World country or Greece. It could never happen here, right? Think again, says Sarah Palin.

The former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Palin says the feds are afraid of what might happen if the sequester goes into effect.

She writes on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

The sequester will trigger $85 billion in immediate cuts to federal funding and $1.2 over 10 years unless lawmakers reach a deal by Friday.

The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an off-teleprompter remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July, 2008.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said candidate Obama.

Palin’s warning echoes a WND report Feb. 17 citing radio host Mark Levin’s point that federal non-military agencies have purchased enough ammunition recently not only to shoot every American five times but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

Why do federal agencies need all that ammunition?

The government’s official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection by Americans.

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [DHS] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered. “I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”

As WND reported last August, news that the Social Security Administration was set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for 41 locations across the country followed word of major ammo buys by the DHS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A solicitation posted by the SSA on the FedBizOpps website asked for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point pistol ammunition.

An online ammunition retailer described the bullets as suitable “for peak performance rivaling and sometimes surpassing hand loads in many guns,” noting that the ammo is “a great personal defense bullet.”

WND has been at the forefront of reporting growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.

  • In 1997, WND blew the lid off 60,000 federal agents enforcing over 3,000 criminal laws, a report that prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark, “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
  • Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported on the armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program that had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
  • WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of … paperwork.
  • WND further reported on a plan by then Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen into dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
  • In 1999, WND CEO Joseph Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
  • Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
  • In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
  • A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
  • In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
  • Most recently, WND reported that while local police have found themselves short of necessary ammunition, the federal government has been stockpiling billions of rounds for its non-military, non-FBI law enforcement officers.

Recently, other media outlets have begun to take notice of the alarming trend.

Andrew Malcolm wrote Feb. 8 for Investors.com: “In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.

“Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.”

Another recent report questions the motives of the DHS.

On Jan. 4, Ryan Keller wrote at Examiner.com: “DHS has stockpiled nearly 2 billion rounds of ammo. This is an unusually large amount for a federal agency to be stockpiling. The agency has refused to give an explanation for these purchases, going so far as to black out information on another solicitation, which is illegal without Congressional authorization or in response to national security issues.

“The typical response from the media has been that the rounds are for target practice; however, hollow points are not used for target shooting. Hollow points are too expensive and not designed for target practice; instead, full metal jacket rounds are used for training.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/palin-washington-buying-bullets-for-us/#fyydDCuIJFk8HCKl.99

CO: Secret energy lab spawns million dollar govt employee


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 Colorado Watchdog.org .

 

Posted by Tori Richards and Earl Glynn

|

GOLDEN, Colo. – The federal government’s dream of a renewable energy empire hinges on a scrubby outpost here, where scientists and executives doggedly explore a new frontier

National Renewable Energy Laboratory campus

.If you live outside Colorado, you probably haven’t heard of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory – NREL for short. It’s the place where solar panels, windmills and corn are deemed the energy source of the future and companies who support such endeavors are courted.

It’s also the place where highly paid staff decide how to spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars.

And the public pays those decision-makers well:  NREL’s top executive, Dr. Dan Arvizu, makes close to a million dollars per year. His two top lieutenants rake in more than half a million each and nine others make more than $350,000 a year.

Dan Arvizu

But what is really going on there? Energy expert Amy Oliver Cooke drove out to the site, which looks something like Nevada’s Area 51 with its remote location and forbidding concrete buildings. NREL had started a construction project and Cooke wanted to see for herself. She didn’t get far: a man in an SUV seemingly appeared out of nowhere, stopped her car, and told her to leave.

“A beefy looking fellow told me, ‘It’s top secret,’ said Cooke, director of the Energy Policy Center at the Independence Institute think tank. “I said, ‘I’m a taxpayer and I want to see what you’re building’ and he said it was it was ‘top secret so we can bring Americans a better future.’”

With its bloated budget and overseen by a $533 million a year government-funded management company, Cooke isn’t buying it.

“NREL has given us two of the most significant boondoggles, one of them being ethanol and the other being (bankrupt) Abound Solar,” she said. “They were part of the team that pushed Abound Solar along. In fact, they wrote in March 2011 on their website how proud they were of their role in abound solar.

“Am I impressed with NREL? No, not really,” she said.

Ed Perlmutter

NREL’s taxpayer-funded management company has seen its budget more than double since 2006. That’s when one of its most ardent supporters, Rep. Ed Perlmutter D-Lakewood, was first elected to Congress. The lab sits in the middle of his district.

But Perlmutter’s ties go beyond merely promoting green legislation and lobbying his colleagues for NREL funds. He has received $12,670 in campaign contributions from executives of NREL and its management company, MRIGlobal, a company that describes itself as “an independent, not-for-profit organization that performs contract research for government and industry.” Perlmuter’s father has served as a trustee for MRI and MRIGlobal during the past decade. Between 2003 and 2005, Perlmutter was also a trustee. These positions were unpaid.

Perlmutter did not respond to phone calls seeking comment for this story.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY

Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, NREL started in 1977 as the Solar Energy Research Institute, a Jimmy Carter-era response to the 1973 Mideast oil crisis. Its budget, then about $100 million, was slashed during the Reagan era.

By the time Perlmutter was elected, NREL’s budget was $209.6 million. It increased steadily before ballooning to $536.5, a beneficiary of President Obama’s stimulus plan and a $135 million contract spread out over five years to construct a new science center. Its current $352 million budget is down slightly from last year’s $388.6 million.

From its inception, NREL has been managed by MRIGlobal, back then called the Midwest Research Institute.

To handle lab management, MRIGlobal partnered with Ohio-based Battelle Memorial Institute, which describes itself as “the world’s largest nonprofit research and development organization.” The pair formed Alliance for Sustainable Energy, a separate non-profit in 2008, for the sole purpose of managing NREL and installed NREL’s top executives as its directors.

Despite record federal debt, municipal bankruptcies and a nagging global recession, those executives enjoy pay packages that are out of reach of most Americans who pay their salaries. MRIGlobal and Alliance tax documents obtained by Watchdog show most earned well into six-figures:

  • Dan Arvizu, Alliance president and NREL director

2010: $928,069

2009: $691,570

2008: $652,159

Bobi Garrett

  • Bobi Garrett, NREL senior vice president of Outreach, Planning and Analysis

2010: $524,226.

2009: $398,022

  • William Glover, NREL deputy lab director and CEO (retired)

2010: $557,571

2009: $407,361

2008: $315,465

  • Catherine Porto, NREL senior vice president

2010: $406,339

2009: $223,553

The budget to manage Alliance is mind-boggling — and rising. For 2010, tax documents show, Alliance received $532.9 million from the Department of Energy, a whopping $189 million more than they were paid in 2008.

In 2010, MRIGlobal’s tax return shows DOE funding of $104.8 million, while Battelle’s tax return reported $4.55 billion in government grants. Its activities included management of five national laboratories (including NREL) and operating as subcontractor at a sixth.

However, at least one expert who has studied NREL doesn’t see any problem with the fact that the agency is overseen by a management company.

“I have no problems with the contractors operating the lab. They would do a much more efficient job than the government,” said Nick Loris, an energy policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation. “It should lower the cost of these projects.”

But what Loris doesn’t like is the entire concept of placing the government in a role of making energy affordable. That should be a job for the private sector.

“It’s not the government’s role to make energy cheaper. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidize this,” he said. “We’ve seen the failures when the government gets involved in these projects. If they are going to be successful in the marketplace, they wouldn’t need help from the government”

UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS

In fact, the billions that have been siphoned into renewable energy have yet to produce a fraction of the promised return, Cooke claims.

Solar and wind still remain prohibitively expensive and not viable for general use as are corn and wood chips to fuel cars. Yet NREL labs continue to work to this end. Cooke predicts that numerous taxpayer-subsidized companies will go bankrupt in the coming years just as the overinflated housing market came crashing down.

And it’s not just the money, she said. It’s the environmental threat.

Solar companies have been fraught with bankruptcy

“I’ll tell you what’s pollution,” Cooke said. “It’s solar panels and wind turbines abandoned — things with toxic chemicals in them,” she said. “We don’t know what’s going to happen to these things. What do you do with a farm of abandoned wind turbines that are 500 feet tall?”

Despite its bloated stimulus funding, there are signs of financial trouble at NREL. The company offered to buy out 100 jobs when its budget dropped between 2011 and 2012.

Perlmutter spokeswoman Leslie Oliver expressed concern about the buyouts, calling NREL the nation’s green energy “crown jewel” and a driving economic force, the Denver Post reported.

“What about next year?” Oliver said. “Where does this stop?”

On his website, Perlmutter blamed Republicans for the cuts and claimed NREL generates 5,500 jobs. Its direct workforce is listed at 1,700.

By all accounts, Perlmutter’s relationship with NREL will continue. He spent two years trying to pass legislation to give solar companies a break with bankers before successfully adding the language to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

He is co-chairman of the New Democrat Coalition Energy Task Force, part of the Financial Services Committee. Perlmutter has leveraged that role to keep alive a 20-year-old energy tax credit to producers of wind technology.

That credit would have expired at the end of the year. But the Financial Services Committee produced a bill to extend the credit for another year, which carries a cost of $12 billion over the next decade, The Hill reported. It faces stiff opposition from House Republicans.

Meanwhile, as energy expert Cooke predicts, the green business is still shaking out unsustainable ventures. The Danish wind company Vestas, which has several Colorado production sites, announced on Nov. 7 that it will shed 6,700 jobs through the end of next year.

Who’s to blame for the industry’s troubles? Government subsidies? Poorly run companies? Insufficient demand? Foreign competition?

Perlmutter blamed the Tea Party.

“It is clean and it is the future of energy production,” Perlmutter wrote on his website. “Until the Tea Party took over this has always been a simple, noncontroversial tax credit.”

Why do they always point to the Tea Party

Obama: Marxist Revolutionary


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 Michael Oberndorf, RPA

The Democrat Party is dominated by leftist radicals who are abetted by the Republican Establishment

Author


  As most real conservatives know, Obama, by his own admissions, appointments, associates, and actions, is a hard-core, 21st century, Marxist revolutionary. This means that while he has no real plan for what his utopian, pie-in-the-sky collectivist state would look like, or how it would survive as an economic entity, he is dedicated to destroying our existing free, constitutional, capitalist republic to start the process. It also means that like all Marxists, archaic and modern, his primary enemy is what Marx called the bourgeoisie – the Middle Class.

As those who went to school while actual history was still being taught know, it was the rise of a Middle Class that made capitalism possible in the first place. It was the possibility of bettering one’s situation in life, economically, socially, and politically that motivated people to invent new products and the devices to make them, to create systems for the distribution of the products, to constantly improve on all these things to make them more and more available to more and more people. The ability to own property, create personal wealth, and maintain the individual’s power to control how both were used, motivated the colonists in America to become independent and to create a nation, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “…conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

The Founders original statement was, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The equality was of opportunity, not, as the Marxists claim, outcome. But long ago, the Marxists realized that they could sell the myth of equality of outcome to a whole lot of people. “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need” sounds really wonderful. But the reality was always that a large proportion of the people saw no point in working hard to benefit others who did not want to work at all. Participation had to be forced, in every single instance – there is not now, nor has there ever been, a Marxist country in the entire world that is/was not kept in place entirely by the threat of the use of arms. They are/were ALL totalitarian police states. And this is the “fundamental change” that Obama dreams of for America.

Under Obama,we have seen the Constitution violated on an almost daily basis. Laws that the public overwhelmingly disapproves of are passed regularly by a renegade Congress that consistently violates its own rules in the process. Huge bills are amassed, so big and introduced and voted on so quickly, that no one has time to read them, to know what they will require from us, and what the consequences of these radical rules will be. ObozoCare is a great example, but there are others like the highway and farm bills, and the upcoming 2013 Omnibus Federal Lands Bill. All are filled with laws that take more and more of our constitutional freedoms, the liberty that Americans have fought and died to protect and defend for over 200 years, that defined us and made possible the rise of our great Middle Class, and made us different from the rest of the world.

By now most people, even the “low-information voters,” know that Obama is a habitual, unabashed liar. What they need to grasp, however, is that his biggest and most dangerous lie is that he is out to help the Middle Class. As noted above, the MiddleClass, aka We, the People, is his greatest, most hated enemy, and everything he has done since he usurped the office he occupies has been aimed at our destruction as a viable economic, social, and political entity. Everything. Period.

Obviously, too, Obama is not doing this on his own. The Democrat Party is dominated by leftist radicals who are abetted by the Republican Establishment. Obama himself is just a puppet, put in place by hugely wealthy, and therefore powerful, neo-fascist globalists, for whom George Soros is the public face.

The election process has been seriously corrupted by illegal money and massive voter fraud by the left. It is doubtful that fair ones will ever be held again, with the Marxists controlling the mechanism as they do. We, the People, are about to be slammed by an avalanche of unconstitutional laws, taxes, and administrative regulations that will cause the collapse of what is left of American capitalism. With it will go our jobs, our homes, our freedom, and our future. If we do not take action soon, it will be too late. Sadly, the options facing us all are difficult and will require sacrifice and commitment on a level our generations are totally unaccustomed to, and probably unprepared for. Someone wise once said, “We have no problems. We just have solutions we don’t like.” Oh, well.

The son of a German immigrant, I am an archaeologist by profession, with a BA from Metropolitan State College of Denver, and an MA from Leicester University, in England. I am also the Chairman of the Freedom21 Legislative Committee. Over the years, I have lived and worked all over the country, and traveled in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Australia, and Japan. I sincerely believe in the old saying, “America, love it or leave it.”  Michael can be reached at: moberndorf@yahoo.com

‘Magical’ printers produce clothes, medical devices


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 WND.

 

Meet the Israeli-American company behind the amazing 3D printing technology that allows a disabled little girl to move her arms.

 

 

Emma using her Magic Arms printer-made exoskeleton.

Emma using her Magic Arms printer-made exoskeleton.

In the same way that your computer’s printer deposits ink onto paper to form words and pictures, three-dimensional printers put plastics and resins on all sorts of materials to make anything from clothing to advanced medical devices.

“It does seem like magic,” says Joe Hiemenz, spokesman for 3D printer manufacturer Stratasys, which has dual headquarters in Minneapolis and Rehovot, Israel.

Indeed it was magical when preschooler Emma Lavelle was able to use her arms for the first time with the help of a custom-designed robotic exoskeleton made with a Stratasys Dimension 3D printer – so magical that the device has been nicknamed “Magic Arms.”

The little girl has a congenital disorder that compromises her joint mobility and muscles. Researchers at the Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Philadelphia knew of a metal exoskeleton for adults suffering similar conditions, but it was too big and heavy for a child.

The Stratasys printer enabled them to fashion a lightweight alternative that has been nominated for the Designs of the Year 2013 awards by London’s Design Museum. And in his February 12 State of the Union address, US President Obama announced that “3-D printing … has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything.”

“It works identical to an inkjet printer — forming a product layer by layer, but making it from some kind of plastic or resin,” Hiemenz tells ISRAEL21c.

“A head puts down the material in very thin layers following a tool path created by a CAD [computer-assisted design] file, so whatever you have designed through CAD is going to come out. In the case of Magic Arm, it was plastic coming out of the printer in molten form.” This is the same sturdy plastic used in LEGO bricks.

‘Tech couture’

US-based Stratasys and Israel-based Objet – both leading manufacturers in the 3D printing field – merged in 2012. The line of printers assembled in Israel retains the Objet brand name, marketing VP Arita Mattsoff tells ISRAEL21c.

This “tech couture” dress was printed out on an Israeli-made 3D printer.
This “tech couture” dress was printed out on an Israeli-made 3D printer.

At Paris Fashion Week in January, Dutch designer Iris van Herpen unveiled two ensembles from her new haute couture collection that were made with an Objet Connex multi-material 3D printer.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Prof. Neri Oxman, who was born in Israel, produced the intricate printed outfits in collaboration with Austrian architect Julia Koerner, a lecturer at UCLA-Los Angeles, and Belgian software developer Materialise.

The designer had sought out Oxman after seeing her 3D-printed “Imaginary Beings: Mythologies of the Not Yet” display last spring in Paris.

“The Connex line has unique abilities to print different material qualities simultaneously,” says Mattsoff.

“The van Herpen skirt and dress have a combination of rigid and flexible parts made of three different material properties. You could not make this dress without the Connex technology. It allows you to really attempt new things in a unique way.”

Oxman said, “The incredible possibilities afforded by these new technologies allowed us to reinterpret the tradition of couture as ‘tech couture,’ where delicate handmade embroidery and needlework is replaced by code.”

Van Herpen told Fashion Week reporters that she believes “it will only be a matter of time before we see the clothing we wear today produced with this technology, and because it’s such a different way of manufacturing, adding layer-by-layer, it will be a great source of inspiration for new ideas.”

Endless possibilities

Those new ideas are not limited to fashion or even to medical and dental devices.

“This industry started about 25 years ago to make prototypes mainly for the aerospace and automobile industries, and other high-end applications that have deep pockets to explore new technologies,” says Hiemenz. “They’re not prototypes anymore; they’re real products now.”

The medical applications are among the most dazzling, he adds. The 3D printing process has been used to make custom orthotics for disabled American veterans, a better device to treat clubbed feet and even a sophisticated heart surgery tool. The process allows for creating complex interior passages inside devices to carry air or liquids.

Design News magazine recently named Stratasys a Golden Mousetrap awards finalist for its Mojo 3D Printer, its Objet30 3D Printer, and its Objet line of digital materials. The Objet product line won the 2012 Leadership in Engineering Program from US publication Design World, and the Objet260 Connex received an innovation award from Dental Advisor magazine.

Hiemenz says that the news about Magic Arms has resulted in a flood of inquiries from parents hoping that the printed exoskeleton could help their child, too. A foundation is being set up for this purpose at the initiative of Eric Jenson, who produced a video showing Emma and her Magic Arms. The goal is to make 50 of these exoskeletons per month, perhaps giving them free to disabled children in developing nations.

Related Articles

 

About Abigail Klein Leichman

Abigail Klein Leichman is a writer and associate editor at ISRAEL21c. Prior to moving to Israel in 2007, she was a specialty writer and copy editor at a daily newspaper in New Jersey and has freelanced for a variety of newspapers and periodicals since 1984.

 

34 UNIVERSITIES ASK TO FLY SPY DRONES


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 WND.

 

Posted by

But data on those already in air hard to find

175942227

A 2012 list off applicants for Federal Aviation Administration permission to fly drones overhead shows 34 universities want to operate the spy machines.

The list posted online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation also shows that the FBI, the city of Herington, Kan., the Mesa, Colo., sheriff’s office, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army, and the Forest Service applied for permission.

Also the U.S. Department of State, now run by John Kerry, as well as the Department of Energy, U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy also applied.

The educational requests were highlighted in a report by CampusReform.org, which said most of the requests were for “academic research.”

But EFF spokeswoman Rebecca Jeschke told Campus Reform  concerns remain about privacy.

“I think it is really important that no matter what you are using the drones for that there is an appropriate privacy policy,” she said. “You should think through what happens if you catch someone on video. How long do you keep that video? Do you cut that part out before you save it? What if someone is caught on camera doing something embarrassing.”

She also said schools need to let students know if they are being recorded and why.

Campus Reform reported just a few weeks earlier on a failed request from Georgia Tech University’s policy agency for such a permit to “follow individuals” and “locate threats.”

But bigger questions raised by the EFF are how many drones are in operation over the U.S., and what are they doing.

In a posting this week, EFF said some reports indicate the FAA has issued 1,428 permits to fly drones over the U.S. since 2007.

“This new number points out again how difficult it is to answer the most common questions EFF gets from reporters about drones – just how many agencies have applied for drone licenses?” wrote EFF’s Jennifer Lynch. “How many licenses has the FAA issued since it started issuing licenses … and how much has domestic drone use increased over the years?”

The EFF report said it’s really impossible to answer.

“We’ve been tracking drone flights in the United States for several years now through our two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the Federal Aviation Administration, and we currently have more information on domestic drone flights than anyone other than the FAA. But thanks to discrepancies among various drone numbers the FAA has released – to EFF, to the Government Accountability Office and to members of Congress – it’s anyone’s guess exactly how much drone authorizations have increased over the years,” the report said.

What has been made available is that in July 2010, the FAA said there were 71 experimental certificates active. Then, in April 2012, the FAA said 61 public “proponents” had applied for drone licenses. Three months later the GAO said the FAA had issued 201 Certificates of Authorization to 106 local, state and federal entities.

Last September, the GAO said from Jan. 1 to July 13, the FAA “issued 342 COAs to 106 federal, state, and local government entities.” In the same month the FAA told members of Congress 228 public drone license “sponsors” had a current, expired or disapproved COA.

In January, then, the FAA said 81 public drone license proponents had applied between July 2011 and October 2012. This month, the GAO reported the FAA has issued 1,428 permits since January 2007.

“There are other discrepancies,” the EFF report said. “Of the 228 entities on the list released to Reps. Markey and Barton in September 2012, at least 28 are not on either of the lists the FAA provided to EFF.”

They include disparate groups such as the Colorado Department of Transportation; El Dorado, Kan.; Minnesota’s Becker Soil & Water Conservation District; and the Texas Rangers.

“Is it that the FAA, itself, doesn’t know because it hasn’t kept track of its own program?” the EFF report questioned.

In just the past few weeks, the London Daily Mail reported the U.S. Air Force is developing fly-size drones that can sneak up on someone and execute him. The report said it was a project was of the Air Vehicles Directorate, a research center, that was working with Micro Air Vehicles.

The Hill also recently reported that 18 states have considered plans that would restrict the use of drones because of civil liberty and private protection concerns.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/34-universities-ask-to-fly-spy-drones/#v0u1g3X7CJ7vUC83.99

 

Muslim Scum and Animal Abuse


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 Faith Freedom.

 

Posted by Jahanshah Rashidian

 

(Warning: Contains an image of brutal Muslim treatment of animals)

Cruelty Toward “Nejis” Animals

The strollers on this photo unconcernedly watch the scene of cruelty while the kids beat the poor dog to death. They do not seem to be willing to prevent the sadistic act; after all, the dog is “nejis/ najes”, impure in Islam, let it be!

For non-Muslims, it is impossible to find a suitable word to describe such a cruel act, unless one is familiar with the cultures where such animal abuses are practised. As divine purpose, Killing or torturing animals are the vicious rituals still practised in some tribal cultures, but this is not the case in Islam. Animals like pig and dogs are considered as “nejis” or impure. The Islamic legal tradition has developed several injunctions that warn Muslims against nejis dogs.

Based on Islamic laws, a nejis body or object is essentially unclean, what can never be ritually clean by any means. No Muslim is allowed to touch a nejis body or object, it is ritually sinful. Dog, pig and non-Muslims are ritually nejis. There are other laws and traditions suggesting even to kill, torture and humiliate them.

Psychologically, since cruelty to nejis animals is widely practiced or tolerated in Islam, it leads to development of violent antisocial behaviour, Kids who repeatedly torture animals can develop high levels of aggression toward people as well, what unfortunately can affect these Muslim kids to the extent of being the future jihadists or Islamic terrorists. This chain reaction cycle has roots in violence deep embodied in the culture of Islam. Such Muslim kids who are cruel to animals probably witness of suffering from domestic.

We should not compare the Islamic colonisation of the infidel world with those of the European Western colonisation. The indigenous people of these regions not only were colonised, but also forced to convert to Islam; worse, they were forced to abandon their cultures and grow up specific habits of oppressed peoples or have selective reminiscences of their own culture. Contrary to Islam, Western colonialists resorted to much less slavery, committed less violence and left indigenous cultures and tradition often unperturbed. Human relations with animals are hence adjustable to the Islamic norms, not native culture. It is evidence that pet dog was common in ancient Persian before the invasion of Muslims and imposition of Islam in 7th.century.

The evidence points to Muslim’s hostility to these animals have been deliberately fostered in the first place in Iran, as a point of opposition to the old (pre-Islamic jihad conquest) faith (i.e., Zoroastrianism) there. No wonder the Islamic regime considers pet dog un-Islamic and banned dogs in public. In a society that people are amputated, hung, and stoned to death, this cruel act toward a nejis dog is considered as a warm up practice!

FATHER OF U.S. SLAVERY WAS A BLACK MAN


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 WND.

Posted by BEN KINCHLOW

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow reveals true history of legal human bondage

author-image

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.More ↓

However, early American history also reveals another dramatic first involving a black American.

In truth, it should be considered a joint celebration. We are, in actuality, acknowledging the achievements of both blacks and America. Since we are celebrating the achievements of both, it may be appropriate to begin at the beginning.

Black History remembrance began as Negro History Week in 1926 by Carter G. Woodson, a son of former slaves. The second week of February was chosen in honor of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (both born in that week), and in 1976 the entire month was declared Black History Month.

Now to the beginning. It is well known that the first colonials arrived on these shores following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607. Perhaps what is not so well known is the fact that following the Thirty Years’ War, the European economy was extremely depressed. Consequently, many skilled and unskilled laborers there were without work, and the New World offered hope and a chance for a new future.

According to some reports, one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants, and this included some Africans, who arrived in Jamestown in 1619. This distinction is critical; indentured servants were not slaves.

The first blacks to arrive in America were not slaves but indentured servants.

In 1619, all indentured servants (white or black) had specified periods of servitude ranging from four to seven years and received precisely the same treatment and rewards. At the conclusion of their respective periods of servitude, each was entitled to freedom, citizenship and a land grant of 25 to 50 acres. Throughout the early colonial period when all land was held in trust for the king, the basis of land disposition were grants, dispensed by the local government in accordance with the king’s wishes.

Land grants in Virginia were issued in accordance with a particular system. Under this system, every person who paid his own way to Virginia would be entitled to 50 acres of land, known as a “headright.” There was no stigma attached, and all families, black or white, subsequently enjoyed all the rights and privileges of other citizens in the community. A father could indenture a family of four, and since each family member was entitled to 50 acres at the conclusion of the period of servitude, they were given their freedom and the family would qualify for a parcel of 200 acres.

Using this method, one colonist, Anthony Johnson, by indenturing his own family members, was able to secure 250 acres of land. His sons, utilizing the same strategy, gained an additional 650 acres. The Johnsons settled on “Pungoteague Creek” on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and thrived for almost 40 years.

For the indentureds, there were both economic and civic benefits associated with this practice: British law protected the rights of the individual, the master’s power over his indentured servants was limited, and a specific skill must have been taught.

The Virginia Company, however, changed the rules. They would now allow anyone to pay a person’s transportation to the colony in exchange for a period of indentured servitude, subject to certain caveats. Under the new rules, knowledge of a skill of any kind was not included in this contract and whoever paid the cost of passage would receive the 50 acres of land for each passage purchased. Indentured servants would now get nothing but a trip and often found themselves without rights or freedom. As one white indentured servant, Thomas Best, wrote from Virginia in 1623, “My master Atkins hath sold me for 150 pounds sterling like a damned slave.”

Indentured servants, especially whites, could (and often did) slip away, become part of another settlement and simply disappear. A permanent, economically beneficial solution for the elites was sought and implemented.

Note: The Bible points out a common failing and path to social injustice: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Nothing against money per se, but the love of same precipitates activities that generate misery; not a high endorsement for a concept it is supposed to propagate and undergird. (As an aside, the overwhelming majority thinks the Bible is a religious book designed to promote religion. In actuality, there are seven references to religious/religion in the Bible, and six of them are negative.)

Here, history takes a bizarre turn. When I came upon this one particularly astonishing bit of information, I was flabbergasted.

Part of the problem with facts is they can cause discomfort when they do not conform to our preconceived notions. Not once had I ever heard so much as a whisper of this, and it flew in the face of everything I knew – everybody knew – about the origins of slavery in the English colonies. Talk about political incorrectness!

Remember the aforementioned Anthony Johnson? He raised livestock, prospered and as was customary with prosperous landowners, indenturing one black and several white servants. Johnson had sued in court and won several cases, but one case in particular would set the stage for a dramatic shift in the workforce. There are several reports as to the origin of this landmark case, which would indelibly change the American cultural landscape and impact relationships between blacks and whites for centuries.

One report says John Casor, a black indentured servant, “swindled” Johnson out of the remainder of his servitude. Another says the family convinced Johnson to free Casor. Still another says Casor “convinced” a white neighbor, Robert Parker, that he was being illegally detained. Whatever the reason, Johnson was not satisfied with the status quo and took Casor and Parker to court, alleging that Casor had not been obtained as a servant, but as a slave.

Understand the true significance of this case. Johnson was not suing to have John Casor fulfill some measure of a debt of servitude. Instead, he insisted the court grant his petition that “he had ye Negro for his life.” He was claiming the services of John Casor for the remainder of Casor’s natural life. To my knowledge, there is no earlier record of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime. Anthony Johnson was asking the court to award him John Casor (who had committed no crime) as a slave.

Parker and one other influential landowner, both white, sided with Casor. However, the court ruled for Johnson. In the original language taken from the original documents is the decision of the county court:

“Court of Northampton; Eight Mar, Anno1654:
Whereas complaint was this daye made to ye court by ye humble peticion of Anth. Johnson Negro ag[ains]t Mr. Robert Parker…”

I needed to read it slowly and in modern English:

“Whereas complaint was this day made to the court by the humble petition of Anthony Johnson, Negro, against Mr. Robert Parker that he detains one John Casor, a Negro, the plaintiff’s servant under pretense that the said John Casor is a freeman. The court seriously considering and maturely weighing the premises do find that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unrightly keeps the said Negro John Casor from his rightful master Anthony Johnson, as it appears by the Deposition of Capt. Samuel Goldsmith and many probable circumstances. Be it therefore the Judgment of the court and ordered that said John Casor, Negro, shall forthwith be turned into the service of his said master, Anthony Johnson, and that the said Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit and execution. (Eighth March, Year 1654)”

This is apparently the first legal sanction of slavery (not for a crime) in the New World.

Johnson – who had himself been captured in Angola and brought to America as an indentured servant – was a black man.

From evidence found in the earliest legal documents, Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation’s first official legal slaveholder.

The father of legalized slavery in America was a black man.

Do we celebrate that as part of Black History Month?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/#hYcuTeKSmXA4GEVa.99

 

Rogue U.S. General “Arrested” for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down Order


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.thedailysheeple.com.

Posted by M. Frank Drover

The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya which left four Americans dead, has now officially fallen apart.

After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S.military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to “stand down.”

Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.

According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The question now is whether the American people will hold to account the chain of command responsible for leaving our people behind, fabricating a politically expedient story, and continuing to sell the now defunct lie(s) even after all of their variations of the story were found to be false and misleading.

A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future.

In some circles the actions of those at the very top of the command structure during the Bengzahi attacks would be considered traitorous.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Contributed by M. Frank Drover of The Daily Sheeple.

M. Frank Drover is a co-editor and contributor for The Daily Sheeple, an alternative media hub for leading headlines, head lies, opinion, and commentary. Wake the flock up!

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to http://www.TheDailySheeple.com.

2012-10-29 07:21:14

Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rogue-u-s-general-arrested-for-activating-special-forces-teams-ignoring-libya-stand-down-order_102012

FEDS BUYING ENOUGH BULLETS FOR ’24-YEAR WAR’


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 WND.

 

Posted by DREW ZAHN

 

Radio host warns: DHS preparing for prolonged riots in U.S.

author-image 

     Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, “Popcorn and a (world)view.”More ↓

  • dhs_bullets

Federal, non-military agencies, noted radio host Mark Levin last week, have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

The numbers are based on recent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!”

What do federal agencies need with all that ammunition?

The government’s only official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans.

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered. “I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. … I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”

Audio of Levin’s discussion on the ammunition buy can be heard below:

As WND reported, even major gun-rights organizations like the National Rifle Association have attempted to tamp down worries over the amount of ammunition, suggesting the number of bullets bought, spread out over five years and across all the federal agencies with armed agents – considering the number of rounds needed for training, qualification and service bags – isn’t exorbitant.

At the same time, however, others have wondered if billions of bullets isn’t too many to equip the sheer number of federal agents, what does that say about the number of federal agents?

“It’s not the number of bullets we need to worry about,” Jeff Knox, director of The Firearms Coalition, told WND, “but the number of feds with guns it takes to use those bullets.”

“There are currently more than 70 different federal law enforcement agencies employing over 120,000 officers with arrest and firearms authority, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data for 2008,” explained Knox in a recent WND column. “That’s an increase of nearly 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. If the trends have continued upward at a relatively steady rate, that would put the total number of federal law enforcement officers at somewhere between 135,000 and 145,000.

“That’s a pretty staggering number,” Knox continued, “especially when you consider that there are only an estimated 765,000 state and local law enforcement officers. That means that about one in seven law enforcement officers in the country works directly for the federal government, not a local jurisdiction.”

For years, WND has been at the forefront of reporting the growth in federal police power being dispersed across dozens of government agencies:

  • In 1997, WND blew the lid off 60,000 federal agents enforcing over 3,000 criminal laws, a report that prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark, “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
  • Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported on the armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program that had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
  • WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of … paperwork.
  • WND further reported on a plan by then Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen into dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
  • In 1999, WND CEO Joseph Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had
    nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
  • Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
  • In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the
    federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
  • A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
  • In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
  • Most recently, WND reported that while local police have found themselves short of necessary ammunition, the federal government has been stockpiling billions of rounds for its non-military, non-FBI law enforcement officers.

Knox conceded in his column that good arguments can be made for the existence of a dedicated border guard and federal agencies to protect high-ranking officials, protect the federal currency and coordinate enforcement of laws regarding interstate commerce, and so forth.

“But bureaucrats who inspect the records of retailers and manufacturers have no business carrying guns and badges,” Knox opined, “nor do those who investigate white-collar crime for the Small Business Administration and the Department of Education.”

Chris Knox, director of communications for The Firearms Coalition, told WND legitimate concerns about a police state stem from “a set of three intertwined problems,” namely, “militarization of local police, federalization of law enforcement (including local cops getting goodies from federal forfeiture actions) and the expansion of federal law enforcement, where nearly every agency has its own armed service, not just the Drug Enforcement Agency, but administrative agencies like the Department of Education.”

Give all those federal cops two billion bullets, Jeff Knox says, and now there’s cause for concern.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-buying-enough-bullets-for-24-year-war/#hUTa4dqLfPbW3Qhu.99

FEDS ADMIT: GUN LAWS WON’T SLOW CRIME


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 WND.

Posted by Garth Kant

Department of Justice report undermines bans

guns

 

A study by the Department of Justice’s research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime.

The study also concluded those weapons are not a major factor in deaths caused by firearms, nor would an “assault weapons” ban be effective.

“The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the report said.

The document, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” also sees no epidemic of mass shootings.

“Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year,” the report said.

The report advises a more comprehensive approach.

Read the story in “Shooting Back” The Right and Duty of Self-Defense,” about how a massacre was stopped by a man and his gun.

“Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings,” the report said.

The study also found a number of reasons why gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented:

“1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact.

2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.

3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.”

The report, by Greg Ridgeway, deputy director, said restricting large capacity magazines has a “great potential to reduce lethality,” but that would require a massive reduction in the supply.

“In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.”

The report undermines most of the talking points by the Obama administration in its pursuit of more limits on guns, ammunition and accessories.

The administration’s campaign was launched following the Newtown, Conn., massacre that killed 20 students and six adults.

The report noted that a 2000 study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms revealed that 47 percent of crime guns are obtained through a straw purchase, and another 26 percent are stolen.

“These figures indicate informal transfers dominate the crime gun market. A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However this does not address the largest sources (straw purchase and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-gun-laws-wont-slow-crime/#Gcq7Zspm8ubh37Re.99

‘THIS IS A MATCH MADE IN HELL’


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 WND.

 

Posted by

Joel Rosenberg: North Korea, Iran
‘working very, very closely’ on nukes

Need to Watch!!

Earlier this month, North Korea conducted what appears to be its largest and most sophisticated nuclear test to date, but what may also be emerging from the story is the extent that Iran and North Korea are colluding in their efforts to grow their nuclear programs.

One of the most telling indicators of this collaboration may be the reported presence of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Mahabadi at the North Korean test. Mahabadi is the chief Iranian nuclear scientist and rarely travels outside of Iran.

That prospect is very troubling to foreign-policy expert and accomplished fiction and nonfiction author Joel C. Rosenberg. He is the author of “The Twelfth Imam” trilogy. The final installment of the trilogy, “Damascus Countdown,” debuts March 5.

“That is further, I would say confirmation, but certainly raises further concern that North Korea is actually doing the testing for Iran. In other words, Iran would essentially be paying for North Korea to be its research and development system, both for ballistic missiles but also for warheads,” Rosenberg told WND. “So Iran might be assembling a bomb right now. We don’t know that for sure. North Korea might be providing the data for how to test it and make sure that it works. This convergence, this collaboration, between Iran and North Korea is exceedingly dangerous for the United States but also clearly for Israel and for the rest of the Middle East.”

Rosenberg said his analysis is far from speculation, and the cozy nuclear relationship between Iran and North Korea is well documented.

“North Korea and Iran are working very, very closely. They have been for years. In fact, they even signed an agreement, a treaty back in 2011 to work on nuclear issues between North Korea and Iran,” Rosenberg said.

Outside of their shared desire to acquire nuclear weapons and a mutual loathing of the United States, there wouldn’t seem to be much in common between an atheistic communist state and the theocratic Muslim regime in Iran. Rosenberg said their alliance helps both sides address glaring problems.

“It seems odd but here’s the bottom line. Like anything in Washington, follow the money,” Rosenberg said.

“North Korea is starving for cash, but it has nuclear technology and has already tested nuclear weapons several times,” he said. “Iran has plenty of cash, not the people but the government. It’s starving for hard data of what a nuclear test looks like without inviting an American or Israeli airstrike before Iran can get its weapons built and ready to launch. This is a match made in hell.”

The U.S. and other nations have attempted to convince and entice North Korea to abandon its nuclear program over the past two decades with little success to show for it. Rosenberg said efforts to talk Iran out of developing its nukes is an even more fruitless endeavor.

“These aren’t just radical Shia Muslims. They have an eschatology, an end times theology they’ve spoken openly about that the end of the world is almost here. The so-called Islamic messiah, known as the twelfth imam, is going to come and reveal himself on earth at any moment,” Rosenberg said. “The way to hasten or accelerate this appearance of this twelfth imam is to annihilate two countries – Israel, which they call the Little Satan, and the United States, which they call the Great Satan.

“From the perspective of the leaders in Tehran, they believe they are being driven by an end-times theology, and there’s no way that they’re going to back off  from that. They want to bring about their so-called messiah and a global Islamic kingdom or caliphate that they’ve been talking about for centuries,” Rosenberg said.

He said this mindset is not shared by most of the people in Iran or even most of the people in government. As a result, he said a few options exist to diminish the Iranian nuclear threat since sanctions seem to give the Iranians even more resolve.

“The only way to dissuade them is to eliminate those leaders with a revolution or an assassination or a series of them or neutralize the Iranian program,” said Rosenberg, who believes Obama’s upcoming trip to Israel and other nations in the region is specifically designed to find a strategy to neutralize the Iranian threat.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/this-is-a-match-made-in-hell/#YFWyVuhw6cJJToC8.99

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing | Sign up for newsletter to receive notifications | Visit us at http://thegovernmentrag.com

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: