Archive for the tag “Fast & Furious”


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!


Reblogged from:


Posted by:DREW ZAHN


What to do about the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful actions of President Barack Obama?

Some have proposed marches. Others hearings. Some have demanded the president’s resignation. Some have called for impeachment, even though a Democrat-controlled Senate would be unlikely to oust their party’s leader.

Polls show Americans of all parties are upset with the direction of the country, but what can they actually do to make a difference?

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, as chairman of Stand Up America, has been at the forefront of many of these rallying cries, encouraging Americans to take action in a number of ways.

But now the former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army in the Pacific has settled upon a battle plan he believes could actually work: a House-led, parliamentary style vote of “no confidence” in Obama’s administration.

“I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept,” Vallely wrote in an email to supporters obtained by WND. “If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.

“Now is the time for something a dear friend calls ‘conviction without eviction,’ an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide and nationally,” Vallely claims. “This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now.”

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (ret.)

In a blog post on the battle plan posted Dec. 15, the general explained he already has a man on the ground in Washington working to make it happen.

Vallely quotes “a prominent Washington, D.C., insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating –and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of no confidence” as offering the following justification for this novel course of action:

“First, in most of the world’s so-called ‘democracies’ – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of ‘no confidence’ by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the party in power and, in a ‘recall’ of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days,” the insider reportedly reasons. “Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all of the reasons stated in such a resolution.

“Second,” he reasons, “it would be much easier to cosponsor [than impeachment articles], to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s ‘conviction without eviction’ – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

“We know there is no legal standing in a vote of ‘no confidence’ that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur: We take back the power of discourse,” the insider contends. “What do we do? We conduct a national ‘vote of no confidence.’”

“We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign,” Vallely adds, “but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in [Obama].”

Vellely contends the vote also would defuse some of the partisan finger-pointing that infects not only D.C. but the entire country.

“You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event,” he explains. “Rather, what you are doing is telling the world that ‘I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.’ They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.

“A vote of ‘no confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives,” Vallely continued. “If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say, ‘No, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions and I have a deep sense of no confidence in Obama.’

“The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence,” the general contends.

Vallely’s calls to action have been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other examples they cite as evidence of disregard for law and the Constitution are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

“What else is our nation to do now that the rule of law has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration?” Vallely asks. “How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?”

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)

  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)

  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)

  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)

  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)

  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)

  • To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)

  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)

  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)

  • To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)

  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)

  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).

  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)

  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)

  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)

  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)

  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)

  • And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)

  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)

  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)

  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus, which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns in December.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”


Ever heard of this? The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

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!


Reblogged from:


Posted by:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.

Ben Franklin

The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

Truth or Fiction and Fact Check are silent on this as of 2:27 PM CST Feb. 23, 2013 

Snopes, of course, tries to weasel out of the truth.  Go here to find the truth as it is written in law:

Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN!

Are you aware of this law?

DICK ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don’t know this, their rights and the constitution. Don’t prove them right.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.




House Republicans Are Finally Trying to IMPEACH Eric Holder

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!


Reblogged from:


Posted by:

A group of House Republicans are making a move to finally impeach Attorney General Eric Holder and remove him from office.

Eric Holder is behind Fast and Furious, has targeted journalists who challenged Obama, and has constantly trampled on the US Constitution. He should be immediately impeached.

Whether this process takes off still depends on getting more Republicans on board, grassroots activism, and getting past the party establishment. This needs all the public support it can get — please spread the word.


The National Review Online has reported:

A group of Republican congressmen are taking the first steps to impeach a Cabinet secretary for only the second time in American history with the target set on Attorney General Eric Holder.

Freshman congressman Ted Yoho of Florida told a local newspaper that he is hopeful that he and a handful of other lawmakers will meet with John Boehner to discuss their plans. “This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not,” Yoho said. According to his spokesperson, Yoho is not the member who is drafting the impeachment resolution.

Holder has provoked the ire of Capitol Hill Republicans over the years for his ties to a number of controversies. Last year, the House voted to hold the attorney general in contempt for his lack of cooperation in the Fast and Furious investigation. He has also faced questions from lawmakers for the Department of Justice’s seizing of phone records and e-mails from Associated Press and Fox News reporters.

Politico reported:

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” Yoho said, according to the Gainesville Sun, adding “it will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Yoho cited frustration over the botched “Fast and Furious” program – in which federal agents allowed guns to “walk” to Mexican drug cartels as part of an investigation – as one of the main motivations for the impeachment push. That sting operation failed, and weapons tied to the Fast and Furious program were found at the shooting scene when a Border Patrol agent was killed in Dec. 2010.

Omar Raschid, a Yoho spokesman, said Yoho was not actually drafting the impeachment resolution against Holder but declined to say which lawmaker was doing so.

Boehner’s officer declined to comment on the potential Holder impeachment resolution. A Justice Department spokesman also would not comment.

The House approved both civil and criminal contempt resolutions against Holder in June 2012 over his failure to cooperate with congressional subpoenas during the Fast and Furious probe. The Justice Department – as has been done in previous administrations – would not move forward on any criminal charges against Holder. DOJ and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have been locked in a lengthy legal battle as part of the civil contempt fight since that time.

The good news is that Republicans are finally starting to resist the Obama administration. The bad news is that this goes nowhere without grassroots support, and even then it has to get past John Boehner.

We’ve constantly said that John Boehner has to go, and this is a good example of why that’s still the case. Boehner is in a position where he can pretend to fight Obama most of the time — but defend him whenever it actually counts.


The Obama Stasi Rolls On

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 

Posted by Donn Marten 


This video was posted by Glenn Beck over 4 months ago. Boy was he right to sound the alarm!

NSA’s Utah Data Facility

When former Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA operations just remember that he warned that all that was missing for “turnkey tyranny” to ensue would be a change of policy. That of course would be public policy, this government works under the veil of secrecy and this has been ongoing for quite awhile while Americans tuned out of  working to be informed and tuned into Dancing With the Stars or some other televised crapfest. The real policies were birthed from the still smoldering ruins of WW II with the creation of the National Security State and the CIA (formerly OSS) and NSA (formerly Armed Forces Security Agency). Riding high after whipping up on the Germans and Japanese the powers that be were out to make damned sure that unlike the Third Reich the American Empire would last for a thousand years and with the right kind of luck for eternity.  Largely comprised of the Wall Street elite such as Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner and others the CIA would along with the military component NSA make the planet safe for big American money no matter what the consequences were. The methods did not matter and morality was never a consideration as it was all done under the pretense of fighting communism, a reliable bogeyman until the USSR collapsed. Whether it engaged in propaganda campaigns, funding foreign right-wing groups and death squads, assassinating leaders who refused to come to terms with the capitalist mafia, overthrowing regimes to install U.S. friendly despots who reveled in murdering their own people and to wage war, a very lucrative business indeed.

The Massive NSA Facility Under Construction in Utah

Utah Data Facility

The metastasizing of the National Security State and it’s components throughout American society would be a gradual process, and again, the ability to conduct anti-Constitutional spying on its own citizens was critical for any of it to work. Challenges had to be eliminated, be it the infiltration of domestic leftist groups, blackmailing of aspiring politicians and even termination with extreme prejudice were just tools in the box, all dependent on the situation at the time. The advent of computer technology, especially over the past quarter century has rapidly accelerated the process. Former NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently gave an interview where he confirmed that reporters, lawyers, judges and aspiring politicians were spied on by the agency  including then Senator Barack Obama. This revelation like all other inconveniences to the establishment never made it into big media (they are too busy sniffing the royal baby turd as of late) instead being relegated to internet talk shows and alternative media sites. Now the pocket media can just invoke the magical talisman of “conspiracy theorists” and it all goes away. Move along, nothing to see here.

Years before Snowden’s exposure of NSA criminality, Tice came out during the Bush years and eventually revealed that journalists were being spied on. He did so most notably in an interview on the since cancelled MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann Another Bush era whistleblower named Thomas Tamm gave his account in an interview with Newsweek that exposed NSA activities, notably a program called Stellar Wind.  September 11, 2001 would prove to be fortuitous in that it provided justification not only for an eternal “War On Terror” but also ensured that the growth in surveillance, policing, military and propaganda funding would be unlimited and the oversight virtually nonexistent, further more it provided the impetus for the reconfiguration of America into the ominously sounding Homeland. Now communism, the Manichean Devil that justified all evils perpetrated by the United States government finally had an official replacement in terrorism. Not that the construction of the all knowing surveillance and police state ever took a break, it has been a progressive construction project. Before PRISM there was PROMIS, ECHELON,REX 84, COG (Continuity Of Government) and TIA (Total Information Awareness) and no public debate was ever held on any of this yet it fundamentally changes our entire society. You see the policy has always there but only as a component of the secret government that functions outside of the public sphere and transcends presidential terms, it never sleeps. The real horrors along with the final descent of this country into all out fascism will be when that which has been constructed in private becomes the official public policy of the United States of America. I suspect that we will see that in our lifetime and probably sooner rather than later if it can’t be slowed.

Obama is just doing his part in providing the official cover for these programs by defending the indefensible and making damned certain that his Justice Department will go after any leakers with hammer and tong in order to make examples of them as is being done with Bradley Manning who is now undergoing a show trial, Ed Snowden when captured will face much worse than Manning and  sadly a good amount of the public will actually cheer on the persecutors as they destroy him physically, mentally and legally. Obama just keeps the machine running and provides a happy face until the rest of the work that really matters  is done. He is a presidential placebo and anyway, the real  details are way above his paygrade and he already has his golden parachute. Obama just like his loathed predecessor who have both been instrumental in building the coming tyrannical system are set for life now. He is a part of the club (the one that you are I are not in) and he recently signed off on lifetime Secret Service protection for himself and George W. Bush. Both of them will be sitting pretty when the shit finally does hit the fan which will likely be sooner rather than later and they will not have to bother with hearing the screams from inside their fortified homes, elitist vacation resorts and exclusive golf courses.

The enemy in the event there was ever any doubt is US.

Coming on the jack-booted heels of Friday’s rubber-stamping of the NSA’s extension to vacuum up all Verizon customer phone data, a bi-partisan effort yesterday beat back an attempt by insurgent Congressman Justin Amash. Joining Amash was longtime thorn in the side of the establishment John Conyers who tried in vain to reign in the civil liberties shredding surveillance colossus. Amash, a Tea Party Republican from Michigan has now offered proof that zany cultural populist nonsense when replaced with a serious defense of the very real invasion upon civil liberties will allow for stronger alliances with libertarians and progressives to slow the juggernaut while there is still a sliver of time left in which to do so. That sliver however gets tinier by the day and the forces arrayed against the destruction of the tattered remnants of a free society only get bolder and further consolidate their already dangerous positions of power. The Obama administration has proclaimed that it is above the law when it comes to spying on Americans and that their divine right of kings shalt not be challenged in court. In the same sort of twisted legalese that the Bush administration used to justify torture the Obama mob pushed back against the recent anti-spying lawsuit by the ACLU, claiming that it is in the “public interest” and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

The aforementioned pro-civil liberties amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill (the country may be broke but there is always money for more war) went down in defeat 217-205 with such staunch and strident opponents of big government as John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann right along with the insipid and shrill Nancy Pelosi in defending the American Stasi. I suppose that there should something of merit in the amendment even being brought up, something that would have been inconceivable earlier in the post 9/11 era of fear, loathing and the extortion of taxpayers to fund their own enslavement. However, there have been some changes in attitude since Edward Snowden’s leaks but the defeat of the bill only provides more evidence that the system it rigged and that greed, war and oppression are the real things that bring Republicans and Democrats together. In a rare preemptive strike, El Presidente Obama even came out and had his flacks and shills issue a press release urging the defeat of the Amash amendment. NSA Commandant Keith Alexander also called for an emergency private briefing to rally the troops on the hill against the amendment lest his grossly perverted amassing of power take a hit. The whole rank process once again proved that in this rapidly decaying system there would be no challenge brooked nor the governed to be asked for their consent. The Alexander private decree is just like those secret courts that are the antithesis to any serious concept of democracy. Alexander is the strutting epitome of a military dictator salivating over the coming crackdown.

It is by now brutally evident to pretty much anyone who has bothered to read this far that we have a huge problem right now in America. It is a problem that dwarfs all others simply because the ability to collect and store information on all citizens is the primary lynchpin of a full-blown fascist state. But such a state also needs a propaganda spewing media machine, a desperate and poorly informed public, a paramilitary police and a myth of a constant outside threat that is used to justify the need for increasingly radical measures. The mass collection of the data is absolutely crucial in that it will be used when the ubiquitous outside threat is formally changed to an internal one.  That will be the time that the state will ruthlessly crush all perceived threats that may one day work to organize, inform, challenge and reverse the tide. As has been reported the NSA is now capable of conducting three hop data queries which as explained by Philip Bump at Atlantic Wire:

Think of it this way. Let’s say the government suspects you are a terrorist and it has access to your Facebook account. If you’re an American citizen, it can’t do that currently (with certain exceptions)—but for the sake of argument. So all of your friends, that’s one hop. Your friends’ friends, whether you know them or not—two hops. Your friends’ friends’ friends, whoever they happen to be, are that third hop. That’s a massive group of people that the NSA apparently considers fair game.

Theoretically anyone who is currently reading this website and about the entire country would be fair game for future pickup, interrogation, detention, torture and possibly even more extreme measures. This is not hyperbole either, as history has repeatedly proven, power always corrupts and in an end stage capitalist system such as the United States in the 21st century where the elite continue to gorge themselves at the expense of the vast majority and to do so with impunity and the full sanction and protection of the state it is inevitable that a backlash is coming. The backlash will not be tolerated under any circumstances as those who are elite will have no mercy or pause if their ill-gotten gains are ever threatened. When that does occur the pickup lists will be massive and generated instantaneously and that for profit prison system that rivals Stalin’s gulags will provide wonderful temporary housing for the enemies of the state. Programs have already been rolled out encouraging citizens to watch and rat each other out for any type of vaguely “suspicious” behavior so the conditioning is already in the minds of Americans. Decades of movies and television programs have cemented into the consciousness a reverence bordering of worship of the police while the police have subsequently become armed to the teeth and transformed into paramilitary forces. This began with advent of SWAT teams late in the last century and now even Dogpatch USA likely receives war zone grade equipment from the government for their local cops. Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop writes in his article A Decade After 9/11, Police Departments are increasingly Militarized that:

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.


The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent justification for further militarization of America’s police departments: the need to protect the country from terrorism.

Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork with a series of ads (featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary targets.

In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new era, a new time,” here,” one sheriff told the Syracuse Post Standard. “The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to use it.” The same sheriff said later in the same article that he’d use his new SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things.” In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper, Florida — which had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade — were each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer program, leading one Florida paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”

And according to Balko, the Obama administration is actually accelerating the militarizing of the police.

So what exactly do you think is going to happen when the interrogations begin? And another question, are you the type who wallows in denial by reassuring yourself that – I have nothing to worry about if I’m not doing anything wrong? Well you should worry and worry like hell because the probability that you are already linked to someone is pretty much a certainty. Oh, and there is an NSA fortress in Utah that will ensure that there is more than enough storage and computing power to see just what those “three hop” queries may turn up on you. The inquisitors as they always do, will be able to cut deals and people will gladly tattle on just about anyone to save their own asses because this is the way that it works in any closing society where the authoritarians are in total control. During the Nazi transformation of Germany such a system, albeit limited by the lack of high-technology existed and was used not only by the state but by enemies looking to settle scores and others to provide tips that did not exactly lead to enemies of the regime. As Richard J. Evans wrote in his book The Third Reich in Power:

So many denunciations were sent in to the Gestapo that even fanatical leading Nazis such as Reinhard Heydrich complained about them and the district Gestapo office in Saarbrücken itself registered its alarm at the ‘constant expansion of an appalling system of denunciation’. What dismayed them was in particular the fact that many denunciations appeared to be made from personal rather than ideological motives. Leading figures in the Party might have encouraged people to expose disloyalty, grumbling and dissent, but they wanted this practice to be a sign of loyalty to the regime, not a means of offloading personal resentments and gratifying personal desires. Thirty-seven percent of 213 cases subsequently studied by one historian arose out of private conflicts, while another 39 per cent had no discernible motive at all; only 24 percent were clearly made by people acting primarily out of political loyalty to the regime. Neighbors often denounced noisy or unruly people living in the same building, office workers denounced people who were blocking their promotion, small businessmen denounced inconvenient competitors, friends or colleagues who quarreled sometimes took the final step of sending in a denunciation to the Gestapo. School or university students even on occasion denounced their teachers.Whatever the motive the Gestapo investigated them all. If the denunciation was without foundation, they usually simply relegated it to the files and took no further action. But in many cases, denunciation could lead to the arrest of the person denounced, torture, imprisonment and even death.

But if you see something, say something, Homeland Security commands it and it is all for your own safety and happiness.


Operation Fast and Furious Claims Another Victim

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 

Posted by Katie Pavlich 

Katie Pavlich

While the remaining details of Operation Fast and Furious continue to be locked up in a court battle, the real world consequences of the lethal operation continue to emerge. Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times reported a Mexican police chief has been killed with a gun trafficked into Mexico through Fast and Furious.

A high-powered rifle lost in the ATF’s Fast and Furious controversy was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records, suggesting that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico.
Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga, the police chief in the city of Hostotipaquillo, was shot to death Jan. 29 when gunmen intercepted his patrol car and opened fire. Also killed was one of his bodyguards. His wife and a second bodyguard were wounded.
Local authorities said eight suspects in their 20s and 30s were arrested after police seized them nearby with a cache of weapons — rifles, grenades, handguns, helmets, bulletproof vests, uniforms and special communications equipment. The area is a hot zone for rival drug gangs, with members of three cartels fighting over turf in the region.
A semi-automatic WASR rifle, the firearm that killed the chief, was traced back to the Lone Wolf Trading Company, a gun store in Glendale, Ariz. The notation on the Department of Justice trace records said the WASR was used in a “HOMICIDE – WILLFUL – KILL –PUB OFF –GUN” –ATF code for “Homicide, Willful Killing of a Public Official, Gun.”

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed illegal purchasers to buy the firearms at the Lone Wolf store in the Phoenix suburb and other gun shops in hopes of tracing them to Mexican cartel leaders.

As a reminder, nearly 1400 Fast and Furious guns are still missing and as David Codrea points out, the operation was never intended to track the guns now being used in murders south of the border.

A Mexican police chief was killed earlier this year with a rifle traced back to the gun store at the center of the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” operation, Richard A. Serrano of The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. The attack — killing the chief and his bodyguard, and wounding his wife and a second bodyguard — occurred in Jalisco, “suggesting that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico,” Serrano wrote.
That terminology, along with the ubiquitous “botched gun sting,” has been the primary meme used by vulnerable government officials and their media water-carriers to deflect attention — and dismiss as paranoid NRA/rightwing conspiracy theory any suggestion that intent existed to exploit Mexican crimes scene guns traceable to U.S. sources.
That’s despite whistleblower sources claiming in early January, 2011, that guns were being walked “to pad statistics.”

As Attorney General Eric Holder remains in contempt of Congress while trying to dodge multiple scandals, it is important to remind everyone that Operation Fast and Furious is the only Department of Justice scandal with a body count.

Reo Poe to Holder
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.



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


Attorney claims visits from FBI, Secret Service about Web postings



The NSA is systematically monitoring the Internet posts and telephone conversations of U.S. military returning from Afghanistan, according to a civil-liberties attorney.

“The FBI and the Secret Service are showing up to request an interview to question specific Internet posts the veteran has placed on websites such as Facebook,” explained attorney John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead said the agencies are looking for “anti-Obama views that can be interpreted to reflect psychological problems of sufficient seriousness to disqualify the veteran from ever owning a firearm.”

Rutherford told WND credible sources within the National Security Agency have told him the NSA is downloading 1 trillion communications on the Internet per month, including posts to various websites, emails, instant message communications and texting messages.

As WND reported last week, Whitehead and the Rutherford Institute in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., are representing Marine veteran Brandon Raub, 27, who was arrested by FBI and Secret Service agents for comments he made on Facebook expressing dissatisfaction with the present direction of the U.S. government.

Whitehead said his office has received numerous calls from U.S. military returning from Afghanistan with reports they are being visited by the FBI and Secret Service to ask questions about their Internet postings.

“We are advising veterans being visited by the FBI or the Secret Service to take the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions that might end up with a diagnosis of PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, which goes into the veteran’s file and can be used in the future to prevent the veteran from purchasing a firearm,” he said.

Whitehead said that in most of the cases, there isn’t enough information to obtain a search warrant from a judge.

But if the veteran answers questions, he said, the Secret Service or the FBI might get a psychiatrist to visit with the vet for 10 or 15 minutes in the jail cell to acquire enough information to certify in front of a judge that the person should be placed in a civil commitment because of a psychological problem.

In February, reported a complaint by Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, that veterans have been getting letters from the Veterans Administration informing them they have been declared mentally incompetent.

The vet must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the vet desires a hearing, he or she must inform the Veterans Administration within 30 days.

According to the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act any person receiving a determination of incompetency can be prevented from purchasing, receiving, owning, or transporting a firearm or ammunition.

Ronald S. Honberg, director of policy and legal affairs for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, testified before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 10, 2007, that the term “adjudicated as a mental defective” is both stigmatizing and incompatible with modern terminology used in the diagnosis and treatment of people with a mental illness.

“No state official charged with carrying out the requirements of the Brady bill could possibly know what this means, as it is a term that has been obsolete for close to 40 years,” Honberg explained to Congress. “We have received emails and other communications in the past few weeks from people who are incredulous that such a term would still be used in federal law.”

Whitehead explained the problem is intensifying as an increasing percentage of the U.S. military serving in Afghanistan have become disillusioned with Obama administration policy toward the war.

“I’ve had veterans returning from Afghanistan tell me that they passed by the opium fields and it shocked me that the U.S. government was helping the Afghans plant that stuff,” Whitehead said.

“There’s a lot of corruption in the Afghanistan government, passing around bags of cash to top officials, and our troops are beginning to ask, ‘Why am I here?’

He said of these veterans “enlisted wanting to be a great soldier, but they are coming back disillusioned.”

“I’m getting a lot of reports that soldiers are getting pronounced PSTD and there’s nothing they can do about it,” he said. “Then they come home and the process continues. The NSA is targeting veterans, there’s no doubt about it.”

Whitehead said “the technology is driving the show now” at the NSA, with computer software identifying “problematic phrases” that target a person as a potential troublemaker.

He said that with the NSA is doing a trillion downloads a month, “the surveillance is pervasive.”

“Anything digital is subject to government investigation, typically without the person having any knowledge it is happening,” he said. “If you want to go on Google and be anti-war, you are going to end up in a file and you are going to be subject to further investigation.”

Whitehead warned that the telephone call interviewing him for this article was almost certainly being recorded by the NSA and that the contents would end up in a file both for him and for WND.

“The United States is already in a police state, such that the only question is how we are going to deal with it,” he stressed. “With Bush, the surveillance state was beginning. Under Obama, the NSA has blossomed to a whole new level unimaginable in an era only a few years ago before this computer technology existed.”

Whitehead told WND he was convinced Operation Vigilant Eagle was still in operation targeting military veterans as potentially dangerous “right-wing extremists,” even though the DHS, the Department of Defense and the FBI have dropped since 2009 any specific reference to the programs.

“When the drones get here, another Obama program, the drones are going to be awesome,” he warned.

“The drones will have scanning devices that can fly over your home and grab all the digital data in the place where you live. The drones are going to up the ante, there’s no doubt about it. The only question is whether this is still the United States of America. There’s nowhere to hide anymore.”



If Your Hometown Is On This List, Your’e Screwed PART THREE.

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

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

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

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

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

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

This is a Reblogged from


Obama Forward SC 690x1024 If Your Hometown is on This List, Youre Screwed

In case you missed parts one and two of our series, we’re exploring what America will look like after a government collapse. Today, we turn our eyes toward the federal government itself.

First, you need to understand that some areas of the country – some states, some localities – will fare much better than others.

If your city or state is highly indebted, they’ll be forced to cut back on services. Look around your community. See more pot holes? Are the parks looking trashed? Is graffiti staying around longer?

It’s the result of deferred maintenance and already-installed austerity measures. For example, many police and fire departments have already seen major budget cuts.

This has already happened in financially fragile cities such as the bankrupt city of Stockton, California. In fact, Stockton is a good microcosm of the fallout from a government collapse. The AP describes the situation there:

Stockton has tried to restructure some debt by slashing employment, renegotiating labor contracts, and cutting health benefits for workers. Library and recreation funding have been halved, and the scaled-down Police Department only responds to emergencies in progress. The city crime rate is among the highest in the nation.

So after a collapse, don’t expect the government to give you the same service you’ve experienced in the past. Every unit of government will be affected, and the already-poor customer service is going to get even worse.

By the Numbers

It’s my belief that some unexpected event – an oil shock, a Lehman Brothers-type banking collapse, or a sovereign debt crisis – will trigger a monumental collapse in the not-too-distant future. It’s the inevitable result of 30-plus years of misguided economic decisions. Finally, all of our overspending and our mistaken ideas have left no room for error.

Just over 30 years ago, the U.S. national debt was less than $1 trillion. In those days, the total amount of all debt in the United States was only $2 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion, and our debts are collectively more than $56 trillion.

Let’s face it… This level of debt can’t possibly be paid by our sluggish economy.

That’s not all, either. Our power to grow wealth has been decimated, too. America’s share of global GDP has slumped from 31.8% in 2001 to 21.6% in 2011. Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities. Not just jobs… actual factories. Millions of good jobs have been shipped overseas, and they’ll likely never return.


Right now, the Fed is working desperately to forestall the inevitable. But Ben Bernanke and company won’t be able to hold back the tidal wave of reality forever.

If the United States took radical, immediate corrective action, they might be able to forestall a total debacle. But I’m not optimistic.

On the bright side, the U.S. government actually takes in more revenue now than at any time in recorded history. If they just controlled spending, they could pay the bills. Here’s how it could work.

Currently, the federal government brings in $200 billion in revenues each and every month. If they prioritized spending, they could pay interest on the national debt of more or less $30 billion. Then, they could pay their liabilities to Social Security, which currently costs around $50 billion. Medicare and Medicaid cost another $50 billion. Active-duty military pay costs about $2.9 billion, and veterans’ benefits cost about $2.9 billion. A pay-as-you-go system would be tight, but it would work. Out would go Obamacare, the Department of Education, farm and green energy subsidies, and much more. But it would work.

A collapse is inevitable, and it’ll happen. The question everyone needs to ask is: will it happen in an orderly fashion, or after a complete and total economic collapse akin to the Soviet Union collapse in 1989? I know which one I’d prefer.

Photo credit: Dave Merrick

Rise of the Obama ;Reich;

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

Posted by Paula Helton

    The time has come for Americans to stop bending to the will of the PC enablers and define the Obama Administration for what it is;

The Obama Reich. How else to describe the eerily similar parallels of Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler?

There are numerous comparisons to be made. In writing this, I focused on four of them.

Hitler Youth

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”…Mein Kampf

An excerpt from a History Place article titled “Hitler’s Boy Soldiers – 1939-1945” gives us a chilling look at the Hitler Youth.

“From 1940 to 1945, about 2.8 million German children were sent to these camps. There were separate KLV camps for boys and girls. Some 5,000 camps were eventually in operation, varying greatly in sizes from the smallest which had 18 children to the largest which held 1,200. Each camp was run by a Nazi approved teacher and a Hitler Youth squad leader. The camps replaced big city grammar schools, most of which were closed due to the bombing. Reluctant parents were forced to send their children away to the camps.

Life inside the boys’ camp was harsh, featuring a dreary routine of roll calls, paramilitary field exercises,hikes, marches, recitation of Nazi slogans and propaganda, along with endless singing of Hitler Youth songs and Nazi anthems. School work was neglected while supreme emphasis was placed on the boys learning to automatically snap-to attention at any time of the day or night and to obey all orders unconditionally “without any if or buts.”

Obama Youth

The use of songs and chants to brainwash the youth of America has also been the method of choice for Barack Obama. Videos of very young children singing his praises can be found here , here, here and here .

Obama, however, has decided that our children must be indoctrinated at an even younger age as documented in this speech, wherein he demands universal pre-school.

The further indoctrination of college students occurred in his recent address to graduates at Ohio State University. In the speech found here, he admonished the students “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” Whose voices are they to reject; the Founding Fathers, their parents, grandparents, etc.?

The speech at Ohio State also offers further proof that Mr. Obama knows nothing of our Country, as evidenced by his many instances of referring to us a Democracy. Perhaps We the People can aid in Barack’s education by forwarding on to him this explanation of who and what we are:

“When Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was approached by a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia. It was then and there that she asked the now famous question, “Well, Doctor, what have we, a republic or a monarchy?” It is said that Dr. Franklin, without hesitation, said, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

To further enlighten our poser in the White House, Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law defines Republic thusly: a Republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” In other words, a Republic is a system of government where the ultimate power lies with the people; that power executed by way of elected representatives who are responsible to those who elected them and according to the rule of law.

Hitler’s Gestapo

From a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum articled titled, “Nazi Terror Begins”, we learn the following:

“Essential to the intimidating effects of the terror was the willingness of many German citizens (whether out of conviction, greed, envy, or vengeance) to denounce their fellow citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the police. The Gestapo could not have exercised such control over German society without the benefit of this steady stream of denunciations, many of which were entirely unfounded.”

Obama’s Gestapo

Not to be outdone by Hitler’s Gestapo, “Big Sis” Napolitano announced her ”IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING” CAMPAIGN, states:

The “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign—originally implemented by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and now licensed to DHS for a nationwide campaign—is a simple and effective program to engage the public and key frontline employees to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to the proper transportation and law enforcement authorities.

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced new partnerships between the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “If You See Something, Say Something™” public awareness campaign and several sports organizations and collegiate universities. Partnerships include National Football League (NFL) teams, Major League Baseball (MLB) teams, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships (USTA), Ohio State University, and the University of Oklahoma.

Over the past year, DHS has collaborated closely with federal, state, local and private sector partners, as well as the Department of Justice, to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative—an administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and ensure the sharing of those reports with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led Joint Terrorism Task Forces for further investigation.

Other partnerships with the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign have been recently launched by the states of Florida and Maryland, the cities of Baltimore and Newark, the Inaugural Baltimore Grand Prix, and state and major urban area fusion centers across the country.

DHS will continue to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign nationally to help America’s business, communities and citizens remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe.

A 2009 article from the Washington Times described a new Department of Homeland Security Report this way:

“The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

It says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”

The joint federal-state activities will have “a particular emphasis” on the causes of “rightwing extremist radicalization.”

The nine page DHS report can be found here

Ric Bradshaw, a Palm Beach County Sheriff anxious to do his part to encourage his constituents to become spies for the Obama Gestapo, was recently awarded one million dollars by the Florida Legislature. As for what the funds will be used for, Sheriff Bradshaw summed it up in this article from the Palm Beach Post :

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?”

Mein Fuhrer would be proud!

Hitler’s SS

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”…Mein Kampf

Another excerpt from “Nazi Terror Begins” points out the intimidation tactics used by by the Hitler SS to silence his opponents:

“Hitler and the Nazi regime also resorted to simple and extra-legal terror to intimidate opponents. Nazi paramilitary formations, such as the Storm Detachments (Sturmabteilungen or SA, more commonly known as Storm Troopers) and the Protection Squads (Schutzstaffel or SS), had been established during the 1920s to terrorize political opponents and to protect Nazi leaders.”

Obama’s IR’SS’

In order to ensure the Obama regime can steal the amount of wealth from American citizens it feels it is entitled to, Obama’s 2012 budget calls for the hiring of 5100 more IRSS agents, bringing the total number of agents to over 100,000. It also calls for increasing their budget by 12%, for a total IRSS budget of $13 billion. Details can be found in a Washington Examiner article titled, ”Obama ‘12 budget: More IRS agent pit bulls for tax and health care fraud”.

I would say it’s time for We the People to demand a flat tax and eliminate the IRSS. Picturing the IRSS agents standing in unemployment lines is the stuff dreams are made of.

The IRSS will also be the stormtroopers tasked with enforcing Obacare. To accomplish terrorizing and intimidating American citizens and businesses, the bill calls for an additional 16,000 IRSS agents. In this CNBC article, we learn the extent of the power Obama has given his IRSS troopers.

That brings us to the latest abuse of power welded by the IRSS. In a play strait from the Fuhrer’s handbook, Obama has used his IRSS thugs to intimidate conservative groups with the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, as well as those having concerns about debt or taxes, government spending, or educating citizens on the Constitution. An article from the Wall Street Journal, titled “Wider Problems Found at IRS, examines exactly what transpired, as the ensuing attempt to cover it up.

Famed conservative talk radio host, Mark Levin, revealed last week he was also a target of Obama’s goons. He also shone the light on the fact these stormtroopers are armed and defended packing heat by claiming “we’re law enforcement.”

But, not to worry, today Mr. Obama pronounced his outrage and vowed to get to the bottom of it. Seems I’ve heard that song before.

Hitler’s Sheltering in Place

The documentation of Hitler’s Ghettos and Death Camps is ongoing, as decribed in this recent New York Times article

“The documented camps include not only “killing centers” but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named “care” centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel.

Auschwitz and a handful of other concentration camps have come to symbolize the Nazi killing machine in the public consciousness. Likewise, the Nazi system for imprisoning Jewish families in hometown ghettos has become associated with a single site—the Warsaw Ghetto, famous for the 1943 uprising. But these sites, infamous though they are, represent only a minuscule fraction of the entire German network, the new research makes painfully clear.

The maps the researchers have created to identify the camps and ghettos turn wide sections of wartime Europe into black clusters of death, torture and slavery—centered in Germany and Poland, but reaching in all directions.

The lead editors on the project, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites that they have identified as part of a multivolume encyclopedia. (The Holocaust museum has published the first two, with five more planned by 2025.”

Another excerpt from Nazi Terror Begins recounts, “In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany”

Obama’s Sheltering in Place

“All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”…Mein Kampf

I first became aware of the term “shelter in place” during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers. I was astounded that nearly one million people followed the order to stay confined to their homes and the city of Boston was completely shut down. Think about how easy it was to convince an entire city to obey the directive to “shelter in place” as armed government agents blocked off all points of exit.

The full unbelievable account of American citizens, in a city known for it’s contribution to the American Revolution, allowing themselves to be confined in their homes can be found in this NBC news article

Watching dumbfounded the continuing coverage of “sheltering in place”, I wanted to discover if this was phenomenon was occurring elsewhere. Apparently it’s occurring all across America. A few of the instances I found can be found here , here, here, here>herehere, and even at the U.S. Naval Acamedy

Of course coverage of the “shelter in place” in the Boston suburb of Waterton wouldn’t be complete without also mentioning the armed SWAT teams that roamed the streets, dragging residents from their homes and conducting warrantless searches of their homes. Video and pictures can be found here and here

I find little difference between the actions of these SWAT teams and the Hitler SA and SS. How easy would it have been to install barricades and fencing and wall the people in?

If you have a little time on your hands, more interesting reading on Hitler and Nazi Germany can be found in the “The Nazification of German Society” By Jake Cmarada.

Hopefully more Americans will start connecting the dots in Obama’s quest to become our Mein Fuhrer. For the sake of this country, it needs to happen soon.

I leave you with this from an event in Florida as reported by Mike Synan, WOFL Fox 35 reporter:

Crowd Chants “Hail Obama”

Hundreds of people at a Florida campaign rally in featuring First Lady Michelle Obama began chanting “Hail Obama”, according to a television reporter who was covering the event.

“Crowd for #FLOTUS event in Daytona now chanting “Hail Obama,” tweeted WOFL Fox 35 reporter Mike Synan. “Wow, just wow.”

The rally was held at Daytona Beach’s Ocean Center. More than 5,000 people showed up—the crowd described as restless and boisterous.

Synan said the chanting came during a warm up session before the First Lady appeared on stage.

He repeated the claim in a follow-up message on Twitter, “True. Would not lie. Chanting “Hail Obama.”

Synan later said someone in the crowd would yell “Hail Obama” and then “hundreds that could hear that person would repeat.”


State Department orders firm to remove 3D-printed guns web blueprints

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

Posted by Amanda Holpuch, Ewen MacAskill in New York and Charles Arthur in London

Defense Distributed tweeted on Thursday that ‘Liberator’ project had ‘gone dark’ at the request of government officials

  • 3D gun

Fifteen of the gun’s 16 pieces are constructed on the $8,000 Stratasys Dimension SST 3D printer. Photograph: Defense Distributed/EPA

The US government has blocked a Texas-based company from distributing details online of how to make a plastic gun using a 3-D printer.

The ban, by the State Department citing international arms control law, comes just days after the world’s first such gun was successfully fired.

Defense Distributed, the company that made the prototype, stated on Twitter that its project had “gone dark” at the instigation of the government.

The company is run by Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas law student who has said the idea for freely distributing details about how to produce the guns online was inspired by 19th century anarchist writing. Wilson argues everyone should have access to guns.

A State Department spokesman said: “Although we do not comment on whether we have individual ongoing compliance matters, we can confirm that the department has been in communication with the company.”

The action came too late to prevent widespread distribution of the files: Defense Distributed told Forbes that the files have already been downloaded more than 100,000 times in the two days since they were uploaded. The largest number of downloads initially were to addresses in Spain, followed by the US, Brazil, Germany and the UK.

Fifteen of the gun’s 16 pieces are constructed on the $8,000 Stratasys Dimension SST 3D printer, Forbes said. The final piece is a common nail, used as a firing pin, that can be found in a hardware store.

Betabeat posted a copy of the letter reportedly sent by the Department of State to Wilson. The department said the blueprints had to be taken offline because they may contain data regulated by the State Department. The department said it would review the files.

“I immediately complied and I’ve taken down the files,” Wilson told Betabeat. “But this is a much bigger deal than guns. It has implications for the freedom of the web.”

Defense Distributed does not host the files in the US; instead it has uploaded them to the Mega website run by the internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, based in New Zealand, and where user information – including who has logged into the site and downloaded files – is encrypted.

The files have also been uploaded to the Pirate Bay file-sharing site, where they have proved a popular download.

The gun blueprints take the form of computer-aided design files, which have to be read by specialist software which can then be used by industrial 3D printers to build up the hair-thin layers, one by one, to create the finished parts.

On Thursday, a British expert in 3D printing and a ballistics expert separately warned that building a gun from the parts could be lethal to the user, because the physics involved in firing a bullet – with pressures in the gun chamber of more than 1,000 atmospheres, and temperatures of over 200C – could put catastrophic stresses on the plastics used it its construction.

Even so, two British newspapers are understood to have asked 3D printing companies to try to build the gun for them.

In the US, a reporter who downloaded the file found that companies with sufficient 3D printing capability refused to produce the device, citing laws against the production of such weapons – or asking prices that were substantially higher than those for high-quality rifles available in shops.

Wilson has been on a public mission to create a 3D printed gun since September 2012. He initially attempted to fund the project using crowdsourcing site Indiegogo, but the site removed his pitch for breaching the company’s rules. Wilson then raised $20,000 in Bitcoins for the project but Stratasys repossessed his printer.

He has since gained access to a second Stratasys printer which was presumably used to create the gun fired over the weekend.

Wilson unsuccessfully applied for a federal firearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and has said he wants to create the gun legally. On Sunday, New York senator Charles Schumer said that legislation should be created to prevent people from making 3D printed 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 .

Posted by JOE KOVACS

‘This is significant. This is not a throwaway. That’s a dog whistle


President Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City, May 3, 2013.

PALM BEACH, Fla. – President Obama is sending secret, coded messages to Mexicans, letting citizens south of the border know that he agrees with their contention that much of the Southwestern U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico, claims radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Last week, Obama addressed students at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City, saying, “Our attitudes sometimes are trapped in old stereotypes. Some Americans only see the Mexico that is depicted in sensational headlines of violence and border crossings – and let’s admit it. Some Mexicans think that America disrespects Mexico, or thinks that America is trying to impose itself on Mexican sovereignty or just wants to wall ourselves off. And in both countries, such distortions create misunderstandings that make it harder for us to move forward together. So I’ve come to Mexico because I think it’s time for us to put the old mind-sets aside. It’s time to recognize new realities, including the impressive progress of today’s Mexico.”

Limbaugh says he was at first puzzled by Obama’s statement that America was imposing its sovereignty on Mexico, before it finally struck him.

“This sovereignty business, this is significant. This is not a throwaway. That’s a dog whistle,” he said.

“It’s a huge dog whistle to radicalized young Hispanic voters. What he did was send signals to that voting block beneath the radar, because most people not gonna understand what is sovereignty business. That block that’s underneath the radar – Telemundo, Univision – he’s telling them that he agrees with them that California should still be Mexico and that New Mexico should still be Mexico.”

Limbaugh indicated Obama counts on the mainstream of America not hearing or understanding what he’s saying in speeches meant for foreigners.

“But we just blew his cover decoding this,” he continued. “I won’t be surprised if we get some blowback on this. They’ll start calling me a bunch of names and accusing me of making things up or accusing me of harboring hate for all these people. Accusing me of, once again, Limbaugh goes off on an extreme tangent, expect something like that, because this is huge. There are radicalized Mexicans [who believe] California’s still theirs, particularly Southern California. Arizona, New Mexico, radicals. And Obama’s just fueled ‘em. He just told ‘em he agrees with ‘em.”

Limbaugh called the coded messages “a big deal,” adding:

He didn’t talk about Mexico immigration policy. He didn’t talk about Mexico’s need to reform its government, its socialist policies. He didn’t talk about how America helps Mexico financially. He didn’t talk about how we feed and clothe and educate and provide health care to even those from Mexico who are illegally in the United States. The sovereignty business, if you wanted to go to an extreme, you could almost say that Obama has it actually backwards, that it’s Mexico imposing its sovereignty on us. Because we are being made to feed, clothe, and house and provide health care for its citizens. Is Mexico doing that for American citizens? Huh! Try to go down there and become a Mexican. You can’t do it. Their immigration laws, you don’t even want to mess with it, folks. You do not want to mess with it. They do not play games with their immigration.

When has a president of the United States ever attacked America’s sovereignty? I think this is a first. I am not aware of any president ever attacking America’s sovereignty. And in coded language, which is what this was, he’s winking and nodding and dog whistling to the radicalized – not all of them – the radicalized Hispanics. (imitating Obama) “I get it, I get it, we should never have taken Mexico. It’s really yours. I get it, I get it. We’ve been mean. We’ve been imposing our way too long.” Time for a new mind-set.

In one final political dig, Limbaugh noted, “By the way, the warmonger president who took Mexico, James Polk, was a Democrat. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.”



DUH!!! Report: Suspects had no gun licenses

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

Posted by Mike Lillis

The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.

Because Massachusetts state law bars handgun ownership for those younger than 21, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was the only brother who could have obtained a license from the town of Cambridge, Mass., where he lived. But he didn’t take that step, Dan Riviello, spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department, told Reuters.

“There is no record of him having a license to carry,” Riviello said, according to the news service.



Massachusetts state law allows residents under 21 to have rifles, but only those weapons holding 10 rounds of ammunition or less, and only then if the holder has a police-issued ID card. Several local jurisdictions where the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, has lived and studied told Reuters they have no record of issuing him such a card.


More from The Hill:
• Boston surveillance footage sparks privacy debate
• Lawmakers question FBI handling of terror suspect
• George W. Bush: ‘No need to defend myself’
• Dems scramble to change subject after gun bill collapses
• Obama raised $43 million for second inauguration
• Senate poised to back Internet sales tax


Police say Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went on a deadly shooting spree Thursday and Friday, killing a university policeman before confronting local officers in a wild firefight in the middle of a Watertown, Mass., street that left the elder brother dead and a transit policeman injured.

In between those two attacks, the brothers allegedly carjacked a motorist at gunpoint, later releasing the unnamed victim unharmed.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev then led law enforcers on an exhaustive manhunt, which ended in his capture Friday night after yet another dramatic shootout with police.

He remains in a Boston hospital in serious but stable condition, according to the head of the Boston police, recovering from injuries that may include a self-induced gunshot wound to his neck.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


Slapped Down by Senate, Obama Prepares Executive Gun Orders

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



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.


Posted by Tad Cronn

A minor miracle occurred the other day when the Senate, despite months of buildup and lobbying by the Obama Administration, rejected an entire slate of gun-control proposals.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats who jumped party lines voted against the gun grab because of principle or because they fear for their jobs. Either way, they wound up doing the right thing.

And boy, was Obama ticked. If he had clenched his jaw any tighter during his press conference, his teeth would have started shooting out of his mouth from the pressure, like blown rivets.

The classic Obama tantrum should be taken as a warning sign. Obama’s not one of those guys who just takes his ball and goes home to brood. He’s the type who nurses thoughts of revenge.

On Thursday, “Crazy Uncle Joe” Biden briefed the troops to reassure them that the Man Who Would be King would not be so easily defeated by the majority of American rabble who want to keep their right to self-defense.

During a conference call which was supposed to be kept from the press, Biden assured gun-control groups, lobbyists and other participants that Obama would follow up his defeat in the Senate with new executive orders on guns.

It’s been Obama’s pattern throughout his presidency to go around Congress whenever he suffers a legislative defeat.

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she would find ways to bend the law, such as via the “Slaughter Rule,” to make sure that Obama got his way in the House, and she was usually able to bully Harry Reid into making the Senate roll over. Since voters knocked Pelosi off her dais, Obama either has resorted to ordering his “czars” and Cabinet members to implement incremental policies that don’t require congressional approval but have the same effect as the laws, or he has issued executive orders.

It’s the executive orders that are most dangerous to the country because they further solidify his monarchical approach to the presidency. The turning point was when Obama, frustrated by the failure of the Dream Act to pass in Congress, unilaterally wrote it into law with an executive order essentially granting amnesty to millions of children of illegal immigrants being educated in public schools.

Congress didn’t challenge that order, which completely ignored the constitutional separation of powers and secured for the president the power to initiate and pass laws.

So if Obama now wants to write an executive order on background checks, limiting gun magazines or even outright outlawing guns, Congress will have a much harder time challenging it, no matter how far Obama feels like pushing his gun-grab agenda.

Brace yourselves for federal gunfight, part two.

Read more:


Holder gets stormy reception from House panel

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



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.



Holder in the hot seat

The fact there is no love lost between Attorney General Eric Holder and House Republicans was on clear display again Thursday afternoon at a stormy House appropriations panel hearing which culminated with the subcommittee’s chairman declaring he’d given up on Holder and his stewardship of the Justice Department.

“Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it. Forget it,” an exasperated Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) declared after Holder refused to commit to a deadline to answer 91 questions Wolf had prepared. The lawmaker, who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, said he planned to forego asking the questions orally so that Holder could leave the session in order to attend a meeting relating to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.

“We’re just going to ignore you. I’m going to ignore you,” said Wolf, who complained earlier in the two-hour-long hearing that Holder and his aides had not responded to a slew of letters seeking information on various subjects. “Your civil rights division is a rats’ nest….I think you’ve been a failure with regard to the prison industries. You were a failure with regard, with regard to prison rape….If you’re not going to answer the questions….”

“Frankly, I’m not going to pay any attention to you because your positions with regard to these budget….You come up here. You were initially going to stay for the whole time. If you’re not going to answer these questions, then we’re not going to pay any attention to you. Hearing adjourned,” Wolf declared.

“No, Mr. Chairman….if you want me to stay, I’ll stay. I will stay,” Holder replied. “That meeting will just have to wait. If you want to ask some more questions, let’s go.”

“It is an important meeting, but I’m making a determination, if you want me to stay, I’ll stay,” the attorney general said.

“They told me it dealt with the Boston issue. Is that correct? That’s an important issue and I wouldn’t want you to miss it,” Wolf said, rising to his feet. “The hearing is adjourned. I think you ought to go to the meeting.”

Ignoring the fact that the hearing was adjourned, twice, Holder launched into a defense of his tenure at the department.

“You said some things that I think are a little unfair with regard to the civil rights division,” Holder said. “A lot of what the inspector general found in the civil rights division preceded my time as attorney general. We have taken steps to try to deal with the issues that were identified there.”

The chief of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, has been nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next secretary of labor. However, Holder conceded that “there’s no question that work needs to be done” to address further the problems described in the IG report.

The attorney general also said he’d worked diligently on the prison rape issue and to provide work for federal prisoners. He also took a shot at the management of the department under his GOP predecessors.

“I’m proud of what we’ve done across the board at the Justice Department in the last four and a half years. I’m proud of what I’ve done as attorney general. The department that we have now is fundamentally different than the department I found when I got there. We don’t hire people on the biases of political orientation. We don’t do things as was done in the previous administration. We don’t write memos that say that torture is appropriate when dealing with interrogation techniques.”

Relations between Holder and Republican-led House were never good, but went completely sour last June when lawmakers voted, 255-67, to hold Holder in criminal contempt for failing to turn over all the records a House committee subpoenaed about the department’s response to the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal.

In an interview in February, Holder said he had no respect for those who joined in what he dismissed as an act of “partisan sport.” All but three House Republicans backed the criminal contempt measure.

“I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder told ABC News. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

Earlier in Thursday’s hearing, Holder came under fire from GOP lawmakers for refusing to commit to brief them by a particular time about whether the Justice Department recommended to the Pentagon that it not label as an act of terrorism the attack at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. They pointed to an interview Army Secretary John McHugh did recently in which he suggested, but did not say outright, that the Justice Department advised the military against awarding medals to those injured in the attack because doing so could undermine the court martial for the alleged perpetrator, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan.

Hasan had been in touch by e-mail with Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, but investigators have indicated they don’t believe Al-Awlaki or others directed or helped plan the shooting spree.

Two victims of the attack and the wife of a soldier killed in the attack were in the audience at the hearing, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) pointed out as he raised the issue. The lawmaker, who once served on the base, said the victims were being denied medical care and other benefits as a result of being denied Purple Hearts.

Hasan is being prosecuted in the military justice system, not by the Justice Department, something Holder noted. “If we’ve had some interaction with [military prosecutors], I’m just not aware of it,” the attorney general said.

When Holder refused to commit to brief Rooney and other lawmakers about any such contacts, Wolf’s frustration boiled over.

“We’re never getting responses. Once you get out of here, you’re gone, there will be no response,” the chairman said.

At one point, Holder replied: “As soon as I can….that’s the best I can do for you.”

The attorney general eventually said he could “probably” brief lawmakers by the end of next month on any DOJ involvement in the case. He also thanked the victims for their service and said they had his “sympathy for the losses they’ve had to endure.” After the hearing, he spoke briefly with the three audience members involved.

Fattah tried to deflect some of the GOP anger, saying he thinks the Pentagon is “completely wrong” to have declared the event an incident of “workplace violence.” However, he said the decision to hold back on the awards may have been justified by a desire to “further the effective prosecution of the gentleman who did this.” Fattah, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, also urged Rooney to take up the issue with McHugh directly.

Rooney conceded that might have been the best way to proceed, but he also lashed out on behalf of the victims. “There’s a guy in the back of the room who has a bullet that needs to be removed from his body,” the lawmaker said angrily. “He has to wait with a bullet in his body until we figure out what the hell we’re doing in here.”

Wolf’s frustration with Holder seemed to extend beyond the attorney general to his staff. “They’re passing you notes left and right on every issue,” the schoolmarmish chairman complained. Later, he abruptly called out some of Holder’s aides seated in the front row.

“I see you whispering there, back and forth,” the chairman barked.


Guns: The Left’s True Aim, and How to Thwart It

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



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

posted by Lewis Dovland

We must not lose focus on the end goal of progressives regarding guns.  Make no mistake; regardless of what they say, their ultimate goal is confiscation of all guns in America.  And a “universal background check” will get them closer to this nirvana than the banning of a few selected weapons ever could.

To understand progressive methodology, let’s use another similar issue: the gay marriage agenda.  Say the current definition of “marriage” as it has been for thousands of years is represented by “A” on a continuum of A to Z, with “Z” being the left’s ultimate goal.  Asking for “Z” now would be a major overreach (and “Z” is much farther than just gay marriage), so progressives ask for “N,” which is just enough of a stretch to make people push back only a little.

So to protect a foundation of society, the people of California overwhelmingly vote a law that defines marriage — an appropriate state’s rights issue.  The left goes to court and has California’s decision overturned.  The people next pass a state constitutional amendment, and again the left gets it overturned, and now it is in the Supreme Court.  The left also applies public pressure through the media to brand anyone who doesn’t agree as a homophobe or hater, all the while controlling the educational curriculum so only one side of the argument is taught to our children.

Eventually, progressives will get only “C” this time, which is really all they wanted for now.  But note something powerful here.  “C” becomes the new “A.”  So there is never a way to back it up to the original “A.”  Over time, they will win another “C” that becomes “A.”

Before long we find that we are at “H” on the original A-Z scale, but “H” is now considered “A”.  And so it continues.

Note the steps:

  • Ask for more than you know you can achieve.  In fact, ask for something you don’t even want.  Then everyone will be focused more on that than on your real goal.
  • Use all media and educational tools to inculcate your view in the public and low-information voters.
  • Develop your own lexicon, redefine words, and then keep pounding those words into the psyche each time you speak.
  • Attack your opponents not on logic or facts, but by name-calling and emotion, and accuse them of being “obstructionist.”
  • When you concede, always be sure you’ve moved the marker a little farther toward your goal.
  • Reset the measures so that the new position is now considered “normal,” which makes it impossible for anyone to argue against or reverse.
  • Never, ever give up or stop pushing, even when you (temporarily) lose.

How does this strategy apply to the gun issue?  At this time, the left does not expect to restrict the sale of “assault weapons.”  That effort is a deliberate misdirection to throw us off-base so we are jousting with the wrong target and using up energy.

What the left wants is universal background checks.  If leftists get that, they actually leapfrog the restrictions on certain weapon types.  How?

No one can buy a modern operational firearm from a licensed dealer today without a background check.  Period.  There is no “gun show loophole,” because to buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer — the only entity permitted to sell at gun shows — one must pass the background check or show a firearms license.

Not controlled are sales of guns between private parties.  You can sell me your gun in a face-to-face transaction without requiring that you get a background check on me.

Look at where this is going.  The left is asking to ban the sale of “assault” weapons.  Using the marriage example above, this is moving the marker from “A” to about “N” on the scale, since “Z” would be the total ban and confiscation of guns.  The left knows that a ban is not possible, although “Z” is their ultimate goal.  But what are they doing?

Ask for “N” when you know that “C” is possible, use the media and lexicon (“assault weapon,” “gun show loophole”) to pound home the message, demonize those who disagree, and get media support.  Use emotion — see Obama’s recent “shame on us” speech with the Newtown families standing behind him.

And then, the final, sneaky step.  Say, “Well, the American people just don’t understand the need to ban these assault weapons, so at least give us background check legislation.  That is not too much to ask for the children’s sake.”  And if we don’t agree to that, they call us “obstructionist” and other names, trying to shame us into action.  If they succeed, we will have just moved from “A” to “S” on the scale, well past “N.”  How?

Enforcing the universal background check will require registration of all guns in a national database; otherwise, how and where do we prevent private sales without background checks?  And the details of how to enforce the background checks will be handled by the legislation, neatly out of the direct view of the public.  Once that occurs, the government will have a list of all legal guns and owners in the U.S., making confiscation extremely easy when the time comes.

And where are the teeth to make a gun owner register a gun, when he never expects to sell it?  All the left needs to do is make possession of an unregistered gun a felony — a “minor” clause in the law when they craft it.  Then, when you defend yourself at 3 a.m. from an armed home invasion and your gun is found, you will be in more trouble than the perps.  As a felon, you then lose your right to own any guns. 

That is the goal here.  Watch for the left to cave on the assault weapon ban and “settle” for just universal background checks.  Sounds innocuous, right?  If granted, it will provide the left with much, much more than they ever hoped to get at this juncture.

Our answer must be: “Never, never, never — not one inch.”  No universal background checks, ever.  Enforce the laws we have now.  Otherwise, game over for us.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Tough Gun Votes Could End Careers on Capitol Hill

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



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 rebloged from

posted by Jill Lawrence

TARP, taxes, Obamacare, and guns have been blamed for scores of defeats in the last 20 years.

Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., face red-state challenges. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There aren’t too many votes with the potential to make or break a congressional career, but the upcoming gun-control showdown on Capitol Hill is one of them. For true believers aligned with their states, red or blue, the choice is easy. The rest could face difficult questions, such as “Am I willing to lose my job over this?” and “Will I be able to live with my vote?”

Rightly or wrongly, scores of defeats in the past 20 years have been blamed on votes that live in political infamy: Bill Clinton’s 1993 budget that raised taxes, the 10-year assault-weapons ban passed in 1994, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (better known as the bank bailout), and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare).

Support for gun control in particular is perceived as a career killer, largely because of the outsized reputation of the National Rifle Association. The group’s electoral record isn’t as bulletproof as you might think. As Dorothy Samuels noted in The New York Times in 2009, several factors contributed to the Republican sweep of 1994. Clinton went on to highlight his gun-control successes in his winning 1996 campaign. And four years later, gun-rights stalwarts backed by the NRA lost to Democrats in Senate elections in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington.

So you can buck the NRA and win. That could be particularly true this year, when the NRA is on the wrong side of public-opinion polls that show nine in 10 Americans support universal background checks for prospective gun buyers. Still, crossing the NRA is not risk-free. It could encourage primary challenges next year against Republicans. It could also boost GOP odds in conservative states now represented by Democrats, such as Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

But voting the NRA line isn’t entirely without risk, either. Lawmakers could be accused of doing the bidding of a group so far right that it even opposes a new bipartisan compromise to close major loopholes in the background-check system. Or, as former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough put it this week on his MSNBC show, Morning Joe: “If you’re Kay Hagan in North Carolina and you’re Mary Landrieu and you’re running for reelection (next) year, do you really want to go to women’s groups and say, ‘You know, I didn’t have the courage to vote to make sure we could have criminal background checks so rapists couldn’t go and buy guns?’ ” He went on to say that “anybody that votes against criminal background checks” is basically saying “let’s give them a free pass” to buy guns.

There’s room for ambivalence toward the proposals coming before the Senate this week, including expanded background checks and limits on assault weapons and magazine clips. You don’t have to be a Second Amendment fanatic to wonder, as Kathleen Parker did Wednesday in The Washington Post, if at least some of them are simply “balm” to make us feel better. Yet she’s wrong, for instance, to say categorically that it wouldn’t do any good to limit the size of magazines because “maybe a killer simply would carry several small magazines and swap them out.”

In the January 2011 Tucson rampage, several people tackled Jared Loughner and wrested a new magazine from him after he had emptied a 30-round clip and was trying to reload. And in Newtown, where Adam Lanza’s ammunition included 10 30-round clips, parents and other relatives of the victims said 11 children escaped while he was reloading. The families say more lives would have been saved if he had been forced to reload more often.

Once they make their decisions, the questions for politicians are all about the future. When the next shooting happens, as it will, are they prepared to defend a vote against a restriction that might have stopped it? And if they vote for new gun controls, are they prepared for the possibility that voters will oust them?

Former Reps. Marjorie Margolies of Pennsylvania and Karen Shepherd of Utah both lost their seats after voting for Clinton’s 1993 budget, and they say they don’t regret their decisions. “You really have to do what is right and not what you have justified is right” because of your determination to win, Margolies told me three years ago.

And of course, there is always the possibility of a second chance. Margolies recently confirmed that she is considering a race for the House next year, 20 years after her defeat. If she does it, she’ll be owed plenty of help from Bill Clinton, whose daughter is now married to her son, and whose economic plan she saved with her eleventh-hour “aye” vote.



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




Exclusive: Andrea Shea King laughs at folly of leftists, exposed online



Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman, Episode 1: #DoItForGabby

Entertainment lovers! Have you seen the “Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman” show? It’s a situation comedy starring a modern day duo destined to beat the hilarious foibles of the all time classic Lucy and Ricky Ricardo.

“Gabby and Boobie the Rocketman” stars Gabrielle Giffords, the poster child for gun grabbers, who has achieved stardom with her own Twitter hashtag: #DoItForGabby, and her knucklehead but adorable husband, Boobie the Rocketman, who has circled the earth weightless in oxygen-less outer space.

The series’ opening credits roll to this popular Elton John tune.

The set-up: Giffords survives a gunshot to the head during a political event in Tucson, Ariz., two years prior. Fast forward: Now in league with The Brady Bunch, Gabby’s “raison d’être” is to be the poster child for gun control in tandem with the network’s related program starring another comedic tour de force, “Preezy B ‘n da Boyz”. It’s rich!

In Season One, Episode One (“S1Ep1″ in TV talk) #DoItForGabby, with air dates in February and March, hubby Boobie stubs his astro-toe. The hapless anti-gun Rocketman is publicly outed as a hypocrite when he attempts to purchase firearms he says will give him “first-hand knowledge” about the gun-buying process. Oops!

Things really get rolling when, caught by a hidden camera, Boobie says he doesn’t intend to keep the guns, but is going to hand them over to a straw-man third party (the police). What Boobie doesn’t know is that he’s just admitted he’s going to commit a felony.

In a cameo appearance, Mayberry’s patrolman Barney Fife shakes his head: “I don’t know, Boobie. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud.”

Scared and shaken, Boobie, left with only one leg to stand on, hops home to cry on Gabby’s shoulder. Will Boobie be charged with a felony? Hilarity ensues, as Twitterdom erupts in gales of laughter.

In S1Ep2 (TV lingo) – titled, “Ban all dogs!” Boobie the Rocketman strolls on a California beach with his teenaged daughter and her 65-pound bulldog. Boobie tries to control the semi-automatic assault dog when it breaks loose and mauls a sea lion to death. Unbeknownst to the Rocketman, the entire scene is captured on video, making Boobie the butt of more jokes, headlines and hashtag hijinks.

The “Time to ‘ban dogs’?” episode brings Rocketman’s Facebook page more than 5,000 comments, launching the series into the ratings stratosphere with the tagline: “Better add dog to the banned list in the assault weapons bill.”

In the current episode “Join the fight for safer U.S.” (S1Ep3, air date April 7), the couple’s sidekick Geobbels Axelgrease walks Main Street clad in an electronic sandwich board advertising a “poignant” op-ed written by his friend Gabby. In it, Gabby complains she’s impatient. Will the loveable Boobie the Rocketman try to hurry things along? Stay tuned! Like “I Love Lucy,” this comedy duo is definitely snort-worthy!

Speaking of snort-worthy …

Comedy gold

As his career with the peacock winds down, Tonight Show host Jay Leno got a few yuks at the media’s expense with this remark during his opening monologue last week: “And in a groundbreaking move, the Associated Press, the largest news gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term ‘illegal immigrant.’ That is out. No longer ‘illegal immigrant.’ They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat.’ That is the newest – ‘undocumented Democrat.’”

We’re not sure if it was AP or Leno that got the biggest laugh, but both got plenty of Twitter attention.

Sen. Ted Cruz no April fool

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, revealed Easter-bunny-quick wit and humor with a hat trick of April Fools Day jabs at President Obama. He tweeted three photos mocking the President’s statements on Obamacare, leaving the president with er … leftover Easter egg on his face.

The honorable senator from the great state of Texas was on a roll when he also mocked this egg laid by the New York Times: “Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz 1 Apr Can’t make this up: NYT issues correction on Easter, a holiday about which they apparently weren’t that familiar: …

We’ll be watching for more Twitter asides from Sen. Cruz in the days to come. Related: #DefundObamacare: Sen. Ted Cruz takes the fight to defund Obamacare to Twitter

Not funny: Leftists gleefully hope pastor’s son’s suicide gay-related

This past weekend we learned that Matthew Warren, son of mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, had taken his own life. Sadly, not everyone on the Web reacted with compassion.

Blogger “Sooper Mexican” aggregated some of the hateful, vicious tweets, noting, “I find it odd that people who would call themselves gay advocates would hope so ghoulishly that Rick Warren’s son, who tragically committed suicide yesterday, was gay in order to smear Christianity. According to news reports, Warren’s son had struggled with mental illness all his life.

“Of course, there are many kinds of illness that strike all kinds of people, but leave it to the despicable left to hope to justify their hatred for religion by wishing a suicide was caused by homosexuality,” Sooper Mexican concluded.

Pastor Rick Warren authored “The Purpose Driven Life,” which has sold over 32 million copies worldwide.

How did #stupidcelebs get there from here?

Pop stars Beyonce and her hubby “Jay-Z” are under scrutiny by at least two members of Congress for tripping to Cuba. Their jaunt made worldwide news, prompting the investigation by Florida’s Cuban community reps into why the pair was allowed to visit the off-limits, communist-ruled country.

Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, whose districts have a high Cuban-American population, wrote to the Office of Foreign Assets Control demanding “information regarding the type of license that Beyonce and Jay-Z received, for what purpose, and who approved such travel.”

Among those weighing in with 140-character opinions was Cindy McCain, wife of Sen. John McCain, who tweeted: “Rodman goes to N. Korea, Beyonce goes to Cuba. Do these people know how to read? Freedom enabled them to be successful. Not oppression.”

But the final word came from Ros-Lehtinen herself with this tweet: “But @Beyonce and Jayz @S_C_ r having such a good time! MT @TIMENewsFeed: 7 Cuban ballet dancers defect 2 US, Mexico.”

Twitchy asks “Is she still invited to perform for Michelle Obama’s next birthday? Stay tuned!”




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



Court fight over ‘Fast and Furious’ papers ratcheting up



WASHINGTON – A court fight over documentation of the Fast and Furious scandal, where the U.S. government trafficked weapons to drug dealers in Mexico, is just ratcheting up now.

But Katie Pavlich, author of the New York Times bestseller “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up,” news editor of and an expert on the Fast and Furious scandal, says the documents will be “damning” for Attorney General Eric Holder, and possibly even President Obama.

She said both politicians should be concerned “based on the evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder chang[ed] his testimony multiple times under oath in front of Congress.”

“I think these documents are pretty damning to him,” she told WND in an exclusive interview.

It was reported just last month that a federal judge has ordered the House Oversight Committee and Holder to work with a mediator in their battle over the paperwork from the Fast and Furious scandal.

The 2009 exposure of Fast and Furious by whistleblowers revealed the government’s deliberate decision to sell guns to prohibited buyers and allow them to be taken to drug cartel operations in Mexico.

Read Pavlich’s comments about the government’s false flag operation against gun dealers as well as how the government retaliated against the whistleblowers who revealed the scandal.

Pavlich earlier revealed how the government, when the operation blew up, decided to attack and retaliate against the whistleblowers who brought to the public’s attention the misbehavior.

She also explained earlier to WND how the goal of the operation was to create a false flag situation that the Obama administration could use to lobby for more gun control.

It was U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson who outlined the mediation plan, and a new status report will be due April 22. If no settlement is reached, a hearing will be held April 24 for the lawsuit by Congress against Holder over his decision to withhold tens of thousands of documents on the issue.

But Pavlich cites the timing and manner of how Obama decided to assert executive privilege over the documents – a move made only 15 minutes before a congressional contempt vote on Holder over the documentation.

“There is plenty of evidence that shows that they are liable,” Pavlich said. “These documents will show much more White House involvement.”

“The fact is there are at least 200,000 documents related to Fast and Furious,” said Pavlich, with “70,000 documents requested by the oversight committee and only 7,000 have been released. Many of which are completely blacked out.”

Pavlich said there is the possibility that not all of the documents related to Operation Fast and Furious will be released. There are certain situations when the justice system can keep information from the American people, she said.

She said the Department of Justice first stonewalled the documents, then released some following a court order, but the case now is “exactly where the Justice Department wants it to be, wrapped up in the court system.”

Pavlich does not expect the documents to be released at any time soon, as “there is no reason why they wouldn’t want” to delay release until after Obama leaves office. “They are going to delay it as long as possible.”

She said there are a number of repercussions possible, but “the next move” should be “to arrest Eric Holder on the Senate or House floor.”

Holder has defended his refusal to release the documents by saying the release could interfere with other investigations that the Justice Department is currently conducting.

This refusal to turn over all documents requested in a subpoena in 2012 has led to Holder being held in contempt in a bi-partisan vote.

See Pavlich’s report:

Fast and Furious

The Office of the Inspector General earlier cleared Holder, but found fault with several other senior officials. One of the key reasons was that the IG said he found Holder “did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February of 2011 and was not aware of allegations of ‘gun walking’ in the investigation until February.”

However, there have been allegations he – and possibly Obama – knew much more, and much earlier, than they have admitted.

The BATF lost track of about 2,000 guns in Fast and Furious, two of which were linked to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

In another related lawsuit, Holder actually has asked the federal court to delay production of the documents indefinitely.

The case was brought by Washington watchdog Judicial Watch, and Holder responded with a motion to stay the case, which essentially would suspend action indefinitely.

“It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”

While Congress had found Holder in both civil and criminal contempt, the U.S. attorney for D.C., Ronald Machen, chose to ignore the congressional resolution that would require him to bring charges.

Read Pavlich’s comments about the government’s false flag operation against gun dealers as well as how the government retaliated against the whistleblowers that revealed the scandal.


Where’s the Outrage Over Obama’s Lies?

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


1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;


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


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


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


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


Posted by Bruce Thornton

Last month President Obama said in a speech, “I’m proud of the fact that under my administration oil production is higher than it has been in a decade or more.” Last year in the second presidential debate, Obama made the same claim, and when Mitt Romney pointed out the facts that debunked it, Obama sniffed, “What you’re saying is just not true. It’s not true.” As the Wall Street Journal reports, the Congressional Research Service now confirms that Obama cleverly lied both times. But the real question is, do any of those Obama voters care? And if not, why not?

They can’t say Obama didn’t lie. The facts on oil production show that Obama shamelessly tried to take credit for the 1.1 million barrels per day increase since 2007 that happened in spite of, not because of, his policies. According to the CRS, “All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands.” On federal land, production fell more than 23% between 2010 and 2012. The federal share of oil production fell from 31% in fiscal 2008 to 26% in fiscal 2012. Similarly, the feds’ share of natural gas production went from 27.8% in 2007 to 15.5% today. Nor is it any mystery why federal oil production has fallen. Obama’s drilling moratorium after the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, and his snail’s-pace process for awarding permits on federal land––process time increased 41% from 2006 to 2011––has held back oil production to gratify the sensibilities of deep-pocketed environmental romantics like the Sierra Club.

As Bob Dole wondered during the 1996 presidential race, “Where’s the outrage?” Where are all those fearless investigative reporters, the self-styled watchdogs of the public weal, who claim to hold politicians accountable when they lie and mislead on the scale this president has? But taking credit for increased oil production is small beer compared to the still festering scandal surrounding the administration’s response to the murder of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, in Benghazi last summer. The legacy media have shown little interest in ferreting out why the President, his ambassador to the U.N., his Secretary of State, and various flunkeys and flacks made multiple public claims that the murders resulted from a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure Internet video.

Indeed, this patent attempt to spin bad news should have been chum to those reporters constantly circling politicians and sniffing out scandal. Nor did you need Sherlock Holmes to figure out the motive. Obama has staked his foreign policy bona fides on the claim that “al Qaeda’s on its heels” and  “al Qaeda is on the run,” that the death of Bin Laden and continuing droning of al Qaeda operatives had contained that terrorist threat, and that the foreign policy of “leading from behind” in Libya and promoting Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would serve America’s interests and security without the interventionist excesses of the Bush administration and its wrong-headed wars. Confronting the truth about Benghazi would have exposed Obama’s foreign policy blunders and the truth he wanted to hide: al Qaeda is active and growing, and overthrowing Gaddafi released tons of advanced weapons into the hands of terrorists while leaving behind a failed state.

The same media that turned a shabby campaign scandal like Watergate, a type of hardball politics unexceptional in American history, into an existential threat to our freedom and democracy, has been AWOL on Benghazi. Where’s Bob Woodward now? He’s too busy recycling anonymous gossip and squabbling with White House factotums who find his tone objectionable. Meanwhile the death of our ambassador, the dangerous failures of the president’s foreign policy, and the patent lies told to cover-up these failures are all ignored.

So much for the media, whose partisanship is so persistent and obvious that it has become a dog-bites-man story. So we know why they are ignoring the scandals and lies and other sins of the Obama administration that, under a Republican, they would have burned through the whole Brazilian rainforest to report. As Jennifer Rubin wrote in January, “The media, in failing to doggedly seek answers, share in this shameful episode and have contributed to the complete absence of transparency and accountability. Nothing but blatant bias can explain that.” But where is the outrage of the American voter? Why didn’t some of the 5 million voters who put Obama over the top last November feel outraged enough by the Benghazi debacle and cover-up to question their support?

This is the key question for those plotting a Republican comeback. Are there too many “uninformed voters” who are ignorant of the facts damning the Obama administration? Then how do we inform them? Given how easily information is available to those who want it in an age of 24/7 cable news and the Internet, it’s hard to imagine what new messaging technique or device will get people to pay attention who clearly don’t want to. Scarier still is the prospect that people know and don’t care. They see the administration peddle half-truths and lies to cover-up a deadly attack on our fellow citizens caused by the president’s incompetence, and simply don’t care. The death of Christopher Stevens to them is not an affront on the dignity and honor of the United States, one to be punished. It is just another statistic, like a highway death, one of those sad things that are the cost of doing business. Poking around in the cause of it is unseemly, as Hillary Clinton said when she yelled at the Senate hearing, “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

That last question, by the way, itself should have generated a firestorm of outrage and demands for her resignation. Whether the Secretary of State doesn’t indeed know “what difference” it makes, or does know and was trying to evade inconvenient truths by resorting to sentimental bluster, she should have been fired. On the contrary, the lapdog press lauded her “fiery moment,” as ABC put it, and her approval numbers reached 61% after her outburst before the Senate, making her the most popular politician in the country.

Clearly, something is missing in a critical mass of American voters when assaults on our interests and security abroad arouse no righteous anger either at the perpetrators or the politicians who caused the attacks and then tried to misdirect the citizens about the real causes for partisan electoral advantage. Something is missing when voters shrug away patent lies about oil production, and ignore policies that are hampering an industry that can create jobs and radically change our foreign policy calculus by liberating our energy needs from thug regimes who use our dollars to attack our interests. So what’s missing?


Two Governors Promise That Socialist Education Can Work

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


Posted by Mark Horne

Socialism is the “public” ownership of the means of production. At yesterday, the article attributed to Governors Bob McDonnell and Bill Haslam, of Virginia and Tennessee respectively, is a reminder of how politicians love their socialism and how it stifles rational thinking and discussion. By owning the means of education production for all but a few who can afford the cost of opting out, the state can presume to take credit for the areas where families and communities already support education in many ways that have nothing to do with the state system. In other areas, where poverty and crime are detrimental to education, they can claim what is needed is more money and more effort. But one possibility that is never considered is that the state is more or less incompetent at education and some parts of society suffer from that incompetence more than others.

Both governors brag on the strata of students in their states who they see succeeding, as if the state government was the reason for that success. Then they admit a problem:

“Right now, in Virginia and Tennessee, there are students sitting in classrooms where their chance of success – a post-secondary education or a suitable job – is less than 10 percent. Some Virginians and Tennesseans have no choice but to send their children to schools that chronically fail to meet basic standards, sometimes for their child’s entire K-12 career. These schools have literacy rates in the teens, and students there are often more likely to drop out than to graduate. A free society cannot afford to relegate its children to failing schools year after year simply because of their ZIP code. In Virginia and Tennessee, we are taking action.”

Let’s be honest about what is happening. There are students who face truancy laws and who are not permitted in the work force who are thus required to sit and rot in prison-cell classrooms that are doing nothing for their mental, social, or intellectual development. Rather than free those children, the only option is to sit there and trust politicians to improve their circumstances next year. They can do nothing for themselves. They are simply hostages to the chance that a government bureaucracy might improve their education next year. Again, the governors simply assume that the classrooms are “working” for the other students. But where is the evidence? It is just as possible that some students are better able to ignore or overcome classroom education. Or it is possible that some students are helped by classroom education and others aren’t.

The bottom line is that the governors admit that these students have “no choice,” and promise to perpetuate that problem. They salve their consciences by promising new government efforts. What are the chances that these promises are really going to help these hostages to socialism?

Worse, most of the boasting in these articles are about planning for changes or starting changes in management that have not yet changed anything else—going back to 2010. So because of the public school system, you have been required to rot in these useless classrooms for years while the state slowly built up new programs to rescue younger students. The only concrete claims of success come from Tennessee:

“In just two years, 55,000 more students are proficient or advanced in 3rd through 8th grade math and 38,000 more students are proficient or advanced in science. These are not numbers. They are real students who have been given a better opportunity for lifetime learning and success.”

Even if these measures are accurate, this is a bait and switch. The article tugged out our heartstrings about schools with literacy rates in the teens. Those students are obviously not the ones getting these marginal improvements in math and science. The illiterate kids are still being shoved around from classroom to classroom learning nothing but how to comply with the ringing of a bell, waiting for the next time a politician needs to shed some crocodile tears over their fate in the hands of socialist education and justify and new “five-year plan.”

We don’t need education “reform”; we need abolition.

Read more:


Texas AG to Obama: I’ll sue if U.N. Arms Treaty is ratified

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


Posted by David Sherfinski

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (Associated Press)

Mr. Abbott writes that he understands the apparent purpose is to combat illegal arms trafficking around the world, but that the treaty could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun operators “into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.”

“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document,” he continues. “Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”
Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.

“It does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the ability of an individual American to go down to Kmart and purchase a hunting rifle,” he said. “This is not about what one person in Colorado might sell to a person in Wyoming.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with Tuesday’s overwhelming vote by the U.N. General Assembly to pass the treaty, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”

The U.S. Senate recently approved a nonbonding amendment opposing the treaty.

Mr. Abbott goes on to write that the U.N. “cannot be trusted” with the United States’ Bill of Rights, and that it includes “foreign governments that have shown hostility to the kinds of constitutional liberties guaranteed to Americans. All Americans are harmed when unaccountable international bodies like the UN are empowered to interfere with our protected freedoms.”

“If the UN Arms Trade Treaty is not stopped at the federal level, I — and my fellow state attorneys general — will take up the fight to preserve the Constitution. Ratification of this treaty would compel immediate legal action to enforce the Constitution’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” he concluded.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

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


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

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: