Conservative Political Views



Is this really what we’re interested in?  The so-called news media flaunting outrage over the possibility that this Notre Dame football player told a lie for personal gain.  However, they have no concern or interest in the Administration’s behavior, the President’s lies, as well as his cronies, who couldn’t tell the truth if it was a matter of life and death, and who can’t stop lying for personal gain!  We are truly upside down–black is white–wrong is right, and a lie is the truth when it comes from the mouth of a Liberal Progressive.

There was a time when actual truth was validated by actual evidence, and everybody knew the facts from the falsehoods.  Now, lies are told as truths, with such finesse and apparent, evidential support, it is almost impossible to tell what is and what isn’t factual.  Although it is difficult, it is possible by thoroughly investigating the claims.  On the surface, it’s not easy to spot the difference between invented statistics and scientific findings, especially for lay people, without first investigating.  Without a background in science and mathematics, individuals are left to depend on their reason and ability to think logically to separate truth from fiction.  The probability that any factual information, coming from the White House, is a bet I’m willing to take.  Most everything from this Administration is a falsehood, an idiotic interpretation of gathered intelligence, or is information presented to to one of the administrative departments.  they are expected to accept as undeniable.  which, in turn, are supported by invented evidence such as false statistics and phony findings, provided by phony experts.  In fact actual experts, such as scientists and high-end mathematicians, were not so hard to come by, apparently, as witnessed by “expert” science and math spewed about regarding global warming.  Today’s political agendas are not so easily forced down our throats because many of us have become savvy and are on the lookout for government, crap science and math.  Those of us who do have our heads out of the dank darkness and into the sunshine can smell a con before it leaves the pen of another Executive Order.  The apathetic, as well as those who have not the time, nor the inclination, to pursue an investigation into White House, personal-gain, agendas, and wait for the other guy.  by hard evidence for a number of political agendasa manufactured consensus necessary to drive home a point to the masses in order to maniputlate others for personal gain.  Manufactured Consensus is fantasy supported by falsehoods.  It is all made up, and it is designed to manipulate the masses into “going along” with politicians, or others, in order for personal gain.numbers and/or make-believe perceptions of the masses and used to hammer home whatever point, law, or Executive Order is put forth!   That’s enough proof, as long as no one looks too closely, to force the Manufactured Consensus down the throats of the people.  Manufactured Consensus is the tail is wagging the dog, a major con, and is always, and forever used as the “means to justify the end,” regardless of what end that might be.

People, in general, are easy to fool because their daily lives are filled with distracting life-difficulties like working to pay the bills, feeding the family, and getting through medical illnesses.  Snake oil salesmen, like politicians, stay focused on “personal gain,” and creating whatever evidentiary consensus needed to provide that personal gain, such as the Sandy, pork-filled relief bill, which did not pass.  The hollering, by Sandy victims, Progressives, and politicians, with their hands out, could be heard around the globe.  The innocent people of that storm were as guilty of corruption as any other planning to personally gain from the recovery bill.  Just as freedom is not free, neither is honor and integrity.  It often hurts to maintain morality and one’s values.  If not those characteristics wouldn’t be worth a damn.  It matters not what amount or type of personal gain one gets.  What matters is the right and wrong of it.


Manti Te’o Tells Katie Couric He Briefly Lied About Girlfriend After Hoax Discovery

By MATT GUTMAN | Good Morning America – 7 hours ago

Manti Te’o briefly lied to the media and the public after discovering his online girlfriend did not exist and was a part of an elaborate hoax, he admitted in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Katie Couric.

The star Notre Dame linebacker, who has been hounded by the reporters since the story broke Jan. 16, told Couric in a taped interview Tuesday that he was not lying up until December. Te’o said he was duped into believing his online girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, died of cancer.

“You stuck to the script. And you knew that something was amiss, Manti,” Couric said.

Te’o found out that Kekua was a hoax on Dec. 6, but on Dec. 8 he again publicly mentioned his girlfriend. The remark came as Te’o was a finalist for the Heisman Trophy, the award for the best college football player in the country. Te’o was eventually a runner-up for the trophy.

“Katie, put yourself in my situation. I, my whole world told me that she died on Sept. 12. Everybody knew that. This girl, who I committed myself to, died on Sept. 12,” Te’o said.

“Now I get a phone call on Dec. 6, saying that she’s alive and then I’m going be put on national TV two days later. And to ask me about the same question. You know, what would you do?” Te’o said.

See more exclusive previews tonight on “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.” Watch Katie Couric’s interview with Manti Te’o and his parents Thursday. Check your local listings or click here for online station finder.

Te’o, 21, was joined by his parents, Brian and Ottilia, in the interview.

“Now many people writing about this are calling your son a liar. They are saying he manipulated the truth, really for personal gain,” Couric said to Te’o’s father.

“People can speculate about what they think he is. I’ve known him 21 years of his life. And he’s not a liar. He’s a kid,” Brian Te’o said with tears in his eyes.

Click here for a who’s who in the Manti Te’o case.

Diane O’Meara told NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday that she was used as the “face” of the Twitter account of Manti Te’o’s online girlfriend without her knowledge or consent.

O’Meara said that Ronaiah Tuiasosopo used pictures of her without her knowledge in creating Kekua.

“I’ve never met Manti Te’o in my entire life. I’ve never spoke with him. I’ve never exchanged words with him,” O’Meara said Tuesday.

The 23-year-old marketing executive went to high school in California with Tuiasosopo, but she says they’re not close. Tuiasosopo called to apologize the day broke the hoax story, she said.

Timeline of Manti Te’o girlfriend hoax story

In an interview with ESPN last week, Te’o said he had received a Twitter message from Tuiasosopo apologizing for the hoax.

The Hawaiian also spoke to Tuiasosopo on the phone the day the Deadspin report came out, according to He found out that “two guys and a girl are responsible for the whole thing,” he said.

But he did not know the identities of the other individuals involved, other than the man he says was Tuiasosopo.

Tuiasosopo, a 22-year-old resident of California, has not admitted involvement publicly. Tuiasosopo graduated from Paraclete High School in Lancaster, Calif., in 2007 and has posted dozens of videos online signing Christian songs.

Those who knew him say he was a devout Christian and a good athlete. His former football coach Jon Flemming described him as gregarious, and from a “good loving family.” Flemming said Tuiasosopo is the kind of guy who gives you a hug when he sees people he knows.

“He’s doing good. Wishing everyone would go away,” Flemming told ABC News Wednesday after a recent correspondence with Tuiasosopo.

Flemming said Tuiasosopo is “somebody I’d want my kid to grow up like. He’s responsible, respectful, disciplined, dedicated.”

Tessi Toluta’u, a Polynesian beauty queen, told ABC News this weekend that “Lennay Kekua” reached out to her in 2008 about entering pageants.

When visiting Los Angeles in 2009, Toluta’u was supposed to meet Kekua, but she failed to appear. Tuiasosopo met Toluta’u instead.

“[It’s a] sick joke that went way too far,” Toluta’u said.

January 25, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , | Leave a comment


Veteran stands up for 2nd Amendment at Chicago anti-gun forum

Posted by    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 12:56pm

After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns “forum” Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments.

The forum, despite having been marketed by the organizers from the New Trier Democrats as a “space for real conversation,” had until then allowed for anything but discussion.

Countless snide remarks and dubious facts were placed on powerpoint slides as the audience, largely filled with NRA supporters, were repeatedly “shushed” and told to write any questions down for a later Q&A.

Still, as time went on, and especially after speaker Bill Jenkins placed a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” and after he had put a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is” up, the crowd had nearly had it.

Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying “it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],” it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up:

The exchange:

Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s f***ing them. We need to stop this crap.

Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.

And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.

Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.

Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….

Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”

Audience: NO!

Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!

Reporter Kathy Routliffe of the Wilmette Life described the event as a “raucous afternoon of anti-gun control activists heckling and jeering at panelists.” If only Routliffe had chosen to provide her readers with the panelists’ inflammatory remarks that led up to the combat veteran’s speech.

(WAJ adds — The image above reminds me of Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech painting)



Listen to This Veteran’s Epic Defense of the Second Amendment at Chicago Anti-Gun Forum: ‘I Went to War for My Country’

Jan. 22, 2013 5:41pm

Listen to This Veterans Epic Defense of the Second Amendment at Chicago Anti Gun Forum


A military veteran delivered a passionate defense of the Second Amendment at a Chicago-area anti-gun “forum” Sunday, saying he went to war to protect all Americans’ inalienable rights — including the right to bear arms. He also argued the threat of “tyranny” is still just as real as it was in the past.

The veteran, along with several other NRA supporters, were reportedly forced to listen to panelists bash the Second Amendment and question whether or not the right to bear arms is still relevant in today’s society.

“About two-thirds of the audience sported Illinois State Rifle Association or National Rifle Association hats or tee-shirts. Many held up “Don’t Infringe My Rights” signs. Many photographed the crowd and speakers with phones and cameras,” according to the Wilmette Sun Times.

One of the speakers at the event, identified as Bill Jenkins, even went as far as to place a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” followed by a picture of a Chihuahua with the caption “this is what I think the NRA really is.” Critics of the NRA have gotten into a habit of comparing the NRA to Nazis.

“Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying ‘it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],’ it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up,” Legal Insurrection notes.

To read the full transcript, click here.

“When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, ‘what does it mean today?’” Goodman defended.

To that, the veteran shot back, “The threat of tyranny is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700.”

January 23, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Celebrate Inauguration Day by Pledging to Doom ObamaCare

by John Nolte 21 Jan 2013, 8:14 AM PDT

As he frequently does, The Washington Post’s George Will’s written a column that helped to crystallize  some thinking of mine with respect to ObamaCare. While we’ve lost the battle against Obama’s government takeover of our healthcare system in the Supreme Court and legislatively, we still have public opinion on our side. And if my instincts and Will’s column are correct, we might still be able to bring ObamaCare down using the Left’s favorite tactic: civil disobedience.

According to Will, ObamaCare removes a major incentive to purchase health insurance. Yes, you read that right: ObamaCare removes a major incentive to buy health insurance.

My apologies in advance, but in order to make a point broader than the one Will’s making — the one about engaging in civil disobedience — I’m going to have to back up and bore you with a few personal details.

It will all come together, though, I promise.

How My Wife and I Lost Our Employer-Paid Health Insurance

In July of 2011, my wife and I decided it was time to get out of the failed state of California and return to our beloved home in the mountains of Western North Carolina. This meant she would have to quit her job, the job that supplied health insurance for the both of us.  This didn’t worry us. A longstanding program called COBRA allows you to hold onto your health insurance for a full 18 months after you leave an employer on good terms.

Paying for insurance through COBRA is extremely expensive, however. Obviously, after you quit a job, your employer’s no longer going to subsidize any part of the cost of your insurance coverage. The full freight for this was somewhere around four times what it was before. Still, we desperately wanted out of California and because of my wife’s stellar work record and references, we were sure the expense wouldn’t be long-term.

What we didn’t count on, though, was just how jobless Obama’s jobless recovery really is.

My wife has never in her life had trouble finding a good job. Her skills, personal character, work history, and references have never failed to land her a full-time position with benefits. Until, that is, Mr. Obama and his “recovery” came to town. Months turned into a year, which turned into 18 months, which turned into our COBRA expiring at the end of last month.

Because of a program set up  by our state that has nothing to do with ObamaCare, and despite a pre-existing condition that would bankrupt us within a couple of years (within the context of ObamaCare, I’ve written about my wife’s health before), my wife was able enroll into a high-risk insurance pool. It’s expensive, but we have no choice and are grateful for its existence.

I, however, do have a choice.

Why I Choose to Be An Uninsured-American

My health situation is a little less complicated than my wife’s. Though I’m 46 years-old, because I’ve been a health-nut for two decades, I’m healthier than most people half my age. But due to some decades-old spinal damage, I do have a pre-existing condition. This means that I too would not be able to purchase insurance in the normal market and would have to join North Carolina’s expensive high-risk plan.

This would cost me somewhere north of $5,000 a year.

Thanks to ObamaCare, though, when faced with this crushing reality, I did something I normally wouldn’t have otherwise considered. For this first time in 25 years, I chose to explore the possibility of not purchasing health insurance.

Because of my back problems, I have to see a specialist every three months. The visits are expensive and so is the daily medication I’ve been on for years — so expensive, in fact, that I was going to buy into that expensive high-risk pool, until…

I made some phone calls.

When I told my doctor I might lose my health insurance, without missing a beat, he cut the price of office visits in half. My pharmacy did something even more remarkable: they set me up on a discount program that — get this — cut the price of my medication to where it’s now a dollar cheaper per month than it was when I had full-boat health insurance coverage.

Is this a great country, or what?

So here are my options: I can pay less than $800 per year for doctor’s visits and medication, or I can pay $5,000 a year for health insurance. But with co-pays and the like, I’d still be paying at least $600 of that $800 on top of the $5,000.

Thanks to ObamaCare, my decision was a no-brainer.

Fact: Until something catastrophic happens, I’m never purchasing health insurance on my own again.

ObamaCare Removes the Primary Incentive to Purchase Health Insurance

Prior to ObamaCare, I never would’ve considered taking the risk of being uninsured. After all, if something awful should happen, I would be screwed without insurance. A cancer or heart attack could bankrupt me.

Well, not anymore.

Starting in 2014, (according to Will’s column) thanks to ObamaCare,  you not only cannot be turned down for health insurance due to a pre-existing condition, but by law, the cost of your premiums can no longer be based on your personal health or personal health risk, such as family history.

Under ObamaCare, the cost of premiums will be based solely on age, where you live, and whether or not you smoke.

In other words, thanks to ObamaCare, starting in 2014, if I’m uninsured and fall off a ladder or have a heart attack, I can call an insurance company and get insured at the same price I would’ve paid had I been dumb enough to have paid all along.

Granted, my decision not to purchase insurance puts me at risk until ObamaCare goes into full effect 11 months from now. But at my age, and based on my personal health and that of my parents, it doesn’t feel like much of a risk.

What it actually feels like is being liberated from a trap.

Until yesterday, this was all my own choice and I was nowhere near ready to make my decision public. Then George Will came along:

The point of the [ObamaCare] penalty to enforce the mandate was to prevent healthy people — particularly healthy young people — from declining to purchase insurance, or dropping their insurance, which would leave an insured pool of mostly old and infirm people. This would cause the cost of insurance premiums to soar, making it more and more sensible for the healthy to pay the ACA [Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare] tax, which is much less than the price of insurance.

[Chief Justice] Roberts noted that a person earning $35,000 a year would pay a $60 monthly tax and someone earning $100,000 would pay $200. But the cost of a qualifying insurance policy is projected to be $400 a month. Clearly, it would be sensible to pay $60 or $200 rather than $400, because if one becomes ill, “guaranteed issue” assures coverage and “community rating” means that one’s illness will not result in higher insurance rates.

So, Lambert says, the ACA’s penalties are too low to prod the healthy to purchase insurance, even given ACA’s subsidies for purchasers. The ACA’s authors probably understood this perverse incentive and assumed that once Congress passed the ACA with penalties low enough to be politically palatable, Congress could increase them.

But Roberts’s decision limits Congress’s latitude by holding that the small size of the penalty is part of the reason it is, for constitutional purposes, a tax. It is not a “financial punishment” because it is not so steep that it effectively prohibits the choice of paying it. And, Roberts noted, “by statute, it can never be more.”As Lambert says, the penalty for refusing to purchase insurance counts as a tax only if it remains so small as to be largely ineffective.

In short: Oh, baby!

Oh, hell yes, I’ll take the fine.

For decades, and only out of fear of the pre-existing condition clause, I’ve paid untold thousands for health insurance that I have never needed to a point where I saved any money. Thanks to ObamaCare, though, starting in 2014, that risk is removed and so is my incentive to pay for health insurance I honestly don’t need.

And now, not only am I saving money (and a lot of it), but the side benefit of engaging in a legal act of civil disobedience against Obama and his statist vision, is worth even more — it’s invaluable.

Hopefully, many of you now have your own gears turning.

A Word of Caution  

The reason I went into the dit-dit details surrounding my own story, is to make clear that the decision to cancel or choose to not get health insurance is a complicated one that requires a lot of thought and planning.  Do not make this decision lightly.

You might also want to wait for added confirmation Will is correct and that Justice Roberts did indeed outsmart Obama.

But if things are as they appear…

The Long Game

If enough of us discover that the responsible decision for ourselves and for our families is to choose the ObamaCare penalty over the ObamaCare mandate that says we must purchase insurance — if we decide to do the patriotic thing and pay for our own health care in the private economy, we can not only crash the ObamaCare model, but while doing so, improve our country’s health care system.

One of the biggest reasons the price of health care is so high is due to health insurance. Because most insurance plans (including the ones ObamaCare mandates we all must own) pay for almost everything, the market is removed from the equation, which means prices explode.

If auto insurance paid for brake jobs, I’ll guarantee you a brake job would be four times more expensive than it is today. But brake jobs are relatively affordable because the customer feels the pain of the cost directly, which creates a fierce pricing competition between companies that offer brake jobs. If we merely had to hand over an insurance card to get a brake job, they would probably be as expensive as an MRI.

Just look at what my doctor and pharmacist (or the drug companies) were willing to do when faced with the prospect of losing a customer over a lack of insurance. Suddenly they made their services/products easily affordable.

Funny how that works.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our acts of civil disobedience in choosing to go without insurance and instead pay the ObamaCare penalty, resulted in a separate health care system based on free market prices; and as a result, the cost of health insurance went down for all?

Again a word of caution: That’s the Pollyanna version.  Unintended consequences of every stripe must be thoroughly thought through.

But any opportunity we might have to restore free market sanity to our health care system is worth considering. There’s no question ObamaCare does just the opposite, but if a ObamaCare loophole can finally put a monster down that threatens the fiscal safety of our entire country, a jump through it is worth considering.

And I’m not asking anyone to consider doing what I haven’t already done.

Power to the people!

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

January 21, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Reload: Second Amendment Rallies Highlight Conservative Potential in Obama’s Second Term

 by Joel B. Pollak 20 Jan 2013

Thousands rallied across the nation yesterday in support of Second Amendment rights, and conservatives were reminded that Barack Obama’s second term presents a unique opportunity to rebuild. Our principles of individual liberty and constitutional government may be a minority creed, but they are still the best principles to have. Even liberals find them compelling–when they are not hypnotized by the Obama cult of personality.

The conservative movement should aim high. Its long-term political goal should be to achieve what Republicans never have done, and Democrats have enjoyed several times: a filibuster-proof majority. The only way to restore the nation’s original constitutional vision, and to renew its rapid economic growth and global leadership, is to push those changes through. The left is not shy about coveting such power; neither should we be.

Pursuing that political goal means moving beyond the political realm, and laying the cultural foundations for a conservative revival. And doing so begins with listening–understanding the nation we are becoming, finding new sources of inspiration in our present as well as our past. Our task is to find the best ideas and best narratives, and amplify them using the best new media–in which we must invest, and innovate.

In the medium term, the task of conservatism is to resist the changes that Barack Obama and the Democrats seek to impose on our society. We must understand that Obama is not looking for compromise. He is seeking to change the boundaries of what is politically possible, even though much of what he wishes to do is only desired by a small minority of the American people. He must be stopped–and he can be stopped.

The key is unity. Obama’s strategy since losing the 2010 midterm elections has been to divide Republicans. And he has succeeded in doing so, several times, on fiscal issues. But when the party is united in opposition, the President cannot win. Republicans have often been maligned as the “party of no,” but it is precisely to say “no” that Republicans were elected. The key is finding the issues on which the party can say “no” in unison.

On some issues, “no” can be absolute. No to tax hikes, which were only passed under duress in the “fiscal cliff” fiasco. No to new stimulus spending, which Obama continues to demand. No to foreign aid to governments that treat the United States as an enemy.

On other issues, “no” should be combined with “unless”–clear conditions that articulate GOP priorities, and that highlight the deficiencies of the president and his party.

So, for example, no debt ceiling increase unless the Senate passes a budget–and no budget that does not aim at eventual balance, through cuts and entitlement reform. No immigration reform without border security and law enforcement. No new background checks for guns until Obama comes clean on his own gun-running in Fast and Furious. No steps on climate change–such as a carbon tax–without matching reductions in the payroll tax.

Republicans cannot govern from one house, nor is Obama interested in co-governing in the way the Framers intended. But Republicans can oppose from one house, and even both at times, effectively as well as constructively, if they choose to fight from positions on which conservatives and moderates are united. That is the key to holding the House through the end of Obama’s second term–and perhaps, winning the Senate in 2014.

One final element is missing, and that is leadership. The country lacks it, badly, and the conservative movement has failed to provide leadership that lasts. Too often, our discussion of leadership is reduced to handicapping presidential candidates, who are then targeted and tarnished by the media, one by one. Leadership is far bigger than that: it is a quality to be cultivated among activists at every level–not just those running for public office.

The most important thing to learn from Obama’s perpetual campaigns is the effort and energy they devote to training individual leaders, who function as a movement not only outside the election season but outside the Democratic Party.

The Tea Party revealed the potential for similar–and better–organizing among conservatives, and hinted at the immense creative potential that remains largely untapped. There is no time to waste.

January 21, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Faith Experts Skewer MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Over His Anti-Bible Tirade: ‘An Ignorance of Our History & Democracy’

Jan. 18, 2013 1:31pm

Faith Leaders and Religious Experts Respond to Lawrence ODonnells Condemnation of the Bible

Photo Credit: AP

Last week, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell unleashed upon the Christian Bible, making bold proclamations against its contents and dismissing it as a book that is outdated and inhumane. As you may recall, the fiery host claimed that nobody today literally follows the Bible in its entirety. He said, “there are no literal followers of the word of God as presented in the Bible left on earth.” Following his diatribe, TheBlaze reached out to Biblical experts and faith leaders to ask for their opinions about his controversial commentary.

As TheBlaze previously reported, O’Donnell also noted his belief that the Bible mandates that prostitutes be burned at the stake and that those who commit adultery and fail to keep the Sabbath also deserve death. Additionally, he argued that the holy book condones slavery.

“The Bible has more death penalties in it than Texas law,” he added, urging President Barack Obama to simply put his hand on one of his daughter’s shoulders, rather than on a Bible, when he takes the oath of office in the coming days (Obama is actually planning to place his hand on two Bibles — one that was owned by Martin Luther King Jr. and another by Lincoln).

Many of the experts TheBlaze spoke with were surprised by O’Donnell’s words. Regardless of Biblical content, the claim that nobody takes the Bible at face-value would certainly be dismissed by many people of faith who take a more literal approach to the book. Of course, O’Donnell’s point was that religious people, based on his view of the scriptures, would be committing horrible offenses if they book the Bible literally. But is his stance on the text correct? The religious experts we consulted disagreed.

“Mr. O’Donnell’s claim that no one observes the bible in its entirety today will no doubt come as a surprise to all of the people [who] observe the bible in its entirety today,” journalist Menachem Wecker wrote in an e-mail to TheBlaze, going on to provide an extended commentary about how ongoing cultural changes render some of the commandments extinct:

To say that Orthodox Jews today don’t observe the biblical commandments that involve applying the death penalty to a wide range of sins is like saying that a Bostonian today isn’t law abiding because she or he neglects to pay His Majesty’s tea tax. Boston is no longer subject to English rule, and in the absence of a Jewish court that has authority to enforce a death penalty (not to mention a Temple, and variety of other factors), the death penalty simply doesn’t apply today.

Many Orthodox Jews believe that they can “fulfill” commandments through study. So when Deuteronomy 17:18 commands kings to write their own Torah scrolls, Orthodox Jews who aren’t and will never be kings may feel that they have fulfilled the obligation by studying the nuance of the laws even if they haven’t actually been able to apply the law.

Of course the question how applicable a lot of the bible is today is beside the point. Even if some of the cultural references in the bible may be dated at this point, the text undoubtedly has been a cornerstone of Western intellectual and cultural history, and it’s hard to imagine many other books that would be more suitable for an occasion such as this.

Faith Leaders and Religious Experts Respond to Lawrence ODonnells Condemnation of the Bible

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell (Photo Credit: MSNBC)

Author R.P. Nettelhorst took a similar approach to O’Donnell’s criticisms, wondering if the MSNBC host would be better served to educate himself properly about the Bible before speaking about it in such fervent terms.

“I think if he actually read the Bible and understood it (a few classes in linguistics, textual criticism, history, theology and some basic courses such as Bible Survey could help), he might not be quite so libelous in his charges against it,” Nettelhorst wrote. “But when one ignores the context and point of a text, it is easy to set up straw men and then trash them.”

The author claims that O’Donnell engaged in cherry-picking and that he lacks the proper context (or is simply ignoring it) and the adequate historic and linguistic background. Nettelhorst called O’Donnell’s reading of the Bible “incredibly naive and simple-minded.”

“He seems unwilling to consider the stories and poems of the Bible are designed to mostly tell us something about God and how to relate to our neighbors — and that it’s not supposed to be read like a legal deposition being interpreted by lawyers,” he continued.

Nettelhorst also spent some time delving into criticisms surrounding homosexuality, slavery and other related issues, providing his take and attempting to debunk O’Donnell’s proclamations:

As to a couple of specific charges that O’Donnell makes. What the fundamentalists believe is condemnation of normal gay relationships is not quite the sort of thing that either Paul or the Old Testament texts were actually condemning. And as to slavery, though there were those Bible readers who used it to justify slavery (just as bad people can twist anything to their ends), it needs to be noticed that slavery largely disappeared from the Roman Empire after Christianity became the dominant religion. And the abolitionist movement was largely driven by Christians, at least in the northern U.S. and in England. Perhaps there was actually something in the biblical texts that led them to conclude that slavery was an abomination? Among other texts, O’Donnell might want to read Paul’s letter to Philemon or consider the implications these words of Paul might have had—and continue to have:

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28)

When Jesus was asked what the most important commandment in the Bible might be, his response was that it was to love God and to love people—and that it was on those two commandments that all of scripture hung (Matthew 22:34-40). When an adulterous woman was dragged before him, he did not condemn her and shamed her accusers—and she went free. O’Donnell says that the Bible is filled with the death penalty. Oddly, the death penalty seems rather inconsistently applied in the actual stories. Moses was a murderer and ended up leading the people of Israel out of slavery (hmm—rescued from slavery; might the story of the Exodus have influenced anti-slavery sentiments?) David committed adultery and then murdered the cuckolded husband—and yet he continued as king. His son murdered his half-brother, and he wasn’t executed either. Even after the murderous son fomented rebellion and caused a civil war, his father David wanted to forgive him.

On the slavery front, Dr. Stephen J. Bennett, professor of Old Testament studies at Nyack College in Nyack, N.Y., added even more context to Nettelhorst’s assessment. Fact-checking O’Donnell’s claims that the Bible purportedly stood in defense for slavery, Bennett explained that “the biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek each have one word that shares the range of meaning from servant to slave.” This fact adds some problematic elements when it comes to translating the Bible’s original meaning into English. Regardless, the professor argues that culture, as it is continuously evolving, was clearly different in Biblical times.

“The kind of harsh and racial slavery that Africans experienced in America is condemned in the most central narrative of salvation in the Old Testament,” Bennett noted. “African slaves resonated with this narrative and their identification with Israelite slavery in Egypt is reflected in their musical heritage. The exodus is also central for Liberation Theology.”

It was God’s identification with the Israelites, who were enslaved, that the educator argues proves that slavery was condemned by both God and the Bible. In fact, Bennett argues that the holy book actually contains a central narrative that is very much opposed to the institution of enslavement.

“Racial slavery was also condemned by the prophet Amos who targeted the Philistines and Tyre for enslaving whole communities (Amos 1:6, 9),” he added.

Faith Leaders and Religious Experts Respond to Lawrence ODonnells Condemnation of the Bible

Journalist Lawrence O’Donnell attends the TIME’s screening of Lincoln and Q & A on October 25, 2012 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images for TIME

And these experts weren’t the only ones who claimed that O’Donnell wrongfully condemned the book. Dr. Darrell L. Bock also weighed in. The professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary found serious errors in O’Donnell’s commentary. Bock argues that the MSNBC host lacks the proper skills in biblical hermeneutics and that “his claims about literalism and the Bible” reflect “an amateur reading” of the book. On the slavery front, he agreed with the other individuals who were consulted for this article.

“A text without a context is a pretext. That is what O’Donnell’s presentation shows,” Bock explains. “Not only does he ignore the history of the separation of church and state, by selectively presenting it, but he also distorts a text by failing to read it in context.”

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, a faith leader who frequently lends his voice to faith discussions on TheBlaze, was equally perplexed by O’Donnell’s assessment of the scriptures. Spero’s assessment is more political in nature, as he believes that many on the left simply avoid faith when it does not meet their ideological worldview:

Liberals, like O’Donnell, are proposing we cast out those documents no longer completely in sync with their views — be it the Bible and even the Constitution itself, as evidenced by some liberal professors disqualifying much of our Constitution since it was written, as they opine, by “Dead White Males” and “accommodated slavery”. The liberal playbook today is to disqualify those previous leaders and seminal American documents that do not agree with their cultural Marxism. It is central to their across-the-board effort of destroying the documents and ethos upon which America was founded and replacing them with theories and documents that will advance their economic and cultural Marxism. In a form of self-worship, nothing nor anyone is qualifiable if it does not represent their point of view. Ironically, one day in the future, they may be disqualified when their views are out of fashion.

O’Donnell and liberals have never accepted the role of religion. Religion comes not to affirm the desires, conveniences and lusts of the undisciplined, but to inform and guide society toward a more transcendent and sacred view, with a distinct moral clarity at odds with the moral relativism championed by those hostile to the Judeo-Christian ethos. Leftists do not want co-existence with the Judeo-Christian ethos but to separate society from it and assign it pariah status. They do so through cynicism and mockery, and they enforce on us standards they never demand of themselves or their theories.

Faith Leaders and Religious Experts Respond to Lawrence ODonnells Condemnation of the Bible

Photo Credit: Getty

Comments from Dr. Alex McFarland, author and Director for Christian Worldview and Apologetics at the Christian Worldview Center of North Greenville University, reflected these same sentiments, dismissing O’Donnell’s views as “bias and intolerance against the Bible and people of faith.” Here, he tackles some of the fine points:

With regard to O’Donnell’s specific claims regarding Leviticus: O’Donnell fails to recognize laws given by God to the Nation of Israel in a specific point of time in history versus the principles laid out for all men, and he also fails to recognize God’s plan of salvation.

When referencing I Corinthians 6:9 – O’Donnell points out that the actual word homosexual is not used in the Bible. And in doing so, fails to miss the entire point of the passage – that sin, including all sorts of hetero or homo sexuality – are displeasing to God. All sin is the same, and God wants people to turn from sin in order for them to be with him for eternity. God does not single out homosexuals: he singles out sinners. […]

O’Donnell calls President Obama’s being sworn in with his hand on a Bible one of our most ridiculous traditions. This is a shocking statement that not only reflects an ignorance of our history and democracy, but is a reckless statement that undermines the democratic system that gives him the freedom to speak his mind.

Of course, it’s no surprise that people of faith would disagree with O’Donnell, but it seems his views on the Bible also deviate from historical truth, specifically when it comes to the context of the scriptures he referenced. What do you think? Let us know in the comments section.


January 19, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE BLAZE by MADELEINE MORGENSTERN (People are more afraid of not having an opinion than they are of looking like fools after expressing those opinions. This nation would be so much better off if folks would just fess up and say, “I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I sure as hell won’t know what I’m talking about once I start!” JM)

Hilarious Jimmy Kimmel Prank Asks People What They Thought of the Inauguration — Before it Even Happened

Jan. 19, 2013 8:46am

President Barack Obama’s second inauguration was “awesome,” “moving” and “you know, part of history.” Vice President Joe Biden even cried.

Too bad it hasn’t happened yet.

But that small detail didn’t stop people from sounding off in front of ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s cameras on what they thought of Obama’s second swearing-in — days before it actually took place.

“It was awesome,” one woman said. “It was, you know, part of history. It was really nice to see him up there, getting his second term. Proud of him.”

She really liked Obama’s speech, particularly him “talking about what he’s going to do for us, not what he’s going to do for the other countries, what he’s going to do for America.”

They weren’t all positive reviews, however: there was one person who “didn’t really care for it…I turned the TV off, it kind of bored me.”

English: President Barack Obama and Vice Presi...

Joe Biden, Elena Kagan, & Guess Who, in the East Room, giving themselves a big hand. Kagan said, “We’re in position now to take this country down! WooHoo!” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

January 19, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Barack Obama — our imperial emperor in chief


Published January 17, 2013

  • Obama_ceiling.jpg

    January 14, 2013: President Obama at a news conference at the White House in Washington, D.C. (REUTERS)

One definition of “imperial” on is, “of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.”

At his news conference Monday, a petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

This president exceeds even Bill Clinton in his ability to evade, prevaricate and dissemble. I didn’t think that possible.

Not only did he supply long answers to relatively easy questions, but much of what he said bore no relation to reality.

A petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke Monday like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

He spoke of having had the debate over the economy during the 2012 campaign and boasted, “…the American people agreed with me.”

By the way, can we now retire the phrase “the American people”? Too many politicians overuse it, including Speaker John Boehner. Forty-seven percent of voters supported Mitt Romney and other Republicans in the last election. Ninety-four million people eligible to vote didn’t vote. Can Obama really claim “the American people” agreed with him?

The president won the election, but he has yet to win the debate over smaller vs. larger government, and more vs. less spending.

The question Major Garrett of CBS News posed to the president on raising the debt ceiling in tandem with spending cuts exposed his hypocrisy and that of many congressional Democrats: “You yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997, all signed deficit-reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers. What Chuck (NBC’s Chuck Todd) and I and, I think, many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history of the modern era of American presidents on the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?”

The president dissembled, talking again (he repeated this at least three times by my count) about how Congress had authorized all the spending and how we must now “pay our bills.” But as Garrett noted, the president had a different view of the debt ceiling when he was an Illinois senator and voted against raising it. In 2006, he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Except when he’s the leader, then it’s someone else’s failure.

In 2003, during another debate over raising the debt ceiling, Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont.), said, “The federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you don’t, your credit rating will suffer. The way the government raises the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a higher debt limit.”

Many other Senate Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid, (D-Nev.), and John Kerry, (D-Mass.), shared Baucus’ concerns, but that was during the George W. Bush administration.

The president says he will reduce debt with a “balanced approach,” by which he means offsetting higher taxes on the wealthy with spending cuts, which will never materialize. It won’t work. Whatever tax revenue government manages to save, Congress will always find a way to spend it.

The president has submitted a budget proposal to Congress for each fiscal year he’s been in office, but Congress has failed to pass a single one. That’s a staggering repudiation of his leadership.

President Obama will not negotiate about raising the debt ceiling? Not surprising. Imperial leaders don’t negotiate.

Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at


January 18, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


Non-Suspect Confesses to Brian Terry’s Murder

by Mary Chastain 18 Jan 2013, 6:09 AM PDT

Gustavo Cruz-Lozano told Univision’s show “Primer Impacto” he is the man who shot Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. He confessed to the murder before he turned himself in on charges of threatening to kill Hidalgo County, TX Sheriff Lupe Trevino.

Agent Terry was murdered on December 14, 2010. Weapons found at the scene were connected to the Department of Justice’s gun walking scheme Operation Fast & Furious. Over 2,000 guns were allowed to walk into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and are linked to over 300 deaths of Mexican citizens. Hundreds of guns are still missing.

There is only one problem with this confession. Cruz-Lozano was not one of the suspects arrested or named after Agent Terry’s death. Manuel Osorio-Arellanes pleaded guilty for participating in the murder.

Univision did reach out to the Terry family lawyer Lincoln Combs for comment. Combs is skeptical because Cruz-Lozano was not named as a suspect by the authorities investigating Terry’s murder. The Osorio brothers, Jesus Leonal Sanchez Meza, Jesus Favela Astorga and Ivan Rosario Soto Barraza are the five suspects in Agent Terry’s death. The Terry family is currently suing the federal government in a wrongful death suit.

Fast & Furious is a case that leaves people with more questions than answers. Cruz-Lozano and Univision just added even more confusion. Even though the Inspector General’s report came out last year we still do not know who created Fast & Furious and who approved it. In fact, the report only cleared the Fast and Furious whistleblowers, not any of the officials including Attorney General Eric Holder.

Also, how will the media react to this story? Since 2011, Big Journalism has called out numerous outlets for mostly ignoring the story and when they do cover it, they cover for President Obama’s administration.

Breitbart News will stay on top of this and report any updates.

January 18, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Rep. Calls for Impeachment If Obama Pursues Executive Orders on Guns

by Breitbart News 14 Jan 2013

After President Obama’s big call for “executive action” on gun control at today’s press conference, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to move for impeachment of the president if he insists on harsh gun measures through that mechanism. Said Stockman, ““I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

Stockman continued, “Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible. Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court …. If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

It is, of course, virtually impossible that President Obama would ever be impeached with a Senate Democrat majority, no matter what sort of usurpation of power he pursued. Nonetheless, Stockman’s outrage represents that of a growing number of Americans uninterested in an imperial presidency.


January 15, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


Is Another Civil War on the Horizon?

lightly edited by Just Me

civil war

A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rear-view mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.

Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons.

As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box, withdrew a military-grade, semi-automatic handgun – an “assault weapon,” if you will – and, with intentionality and great theatre, leaned across his young bride, pointing the gun out the open bay and directly between dirt bag’s booze-flushed eyes.

Van vanished amid a plume of gray smoke as wheels locked, tires screeched and “assault vehicle” fishtailed – jerking to a halt with taillights aglow skyward from the ditch.

Not a shot was fired.

Back at the couple’s rural farmhouse, two boys – boys who would not be orphaned that night – played. We most likely played – my brother Pete and I – with assault rifles fashioned from sticks. I always love to hear Dad retell the story. He does it with an ornery, satisfied grin. “No one’s taking my guns,” he’ll say.

This might be a good time for me to add that no one’s taking my guns either. Period. And if Dianne Feinstein orders me from her lofty perch on the left-coast to retroactively register them with some federal autocracy, I think I might just forget I even have them. Tens of millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans just like me and Dad, I suspect, feel the same way.

I love guns. Grew up with ‘em. As a former police officer with 12 years in the U.S. military, I know how to use them, too – use them well. I plan to buy more – a bunch more. In fact, who’s to say I don’t already have a veritable arsenal?

Point is, tain’t Big Brother Barack’s nor any other candy-keistered-liberal-cream-puff’s bloody business whether I do or not.

See, the left’s totalitarian brand of “gun control” has nothing to do with controlling guns – or bad guys. Rather, it has everything to do with controlling – disarming – the law-abiding masses. It’s not about protecting the innocents. It’s about rendering the innocents defenseless.

Clichés become clichés for a reason, and the old cliché, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” rings as true today as it did whenever it was that some homespun fellow coined it.

I was disgusted – physically sickened, in fact – when Barack Obama, president of these Divided States of America, shamelessly exploited the Sandy Hook memorial service to lay the groundwork for his unconstitutional gun-confiscation scheme. It was slimy to the extreme.

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised. That’s what liberals do. Every time some evil nut-job – pumped full of psychotropic drugs by NEA members who don’t want to deal with them – shoots-up the place, the left’s collective mouth begins to water.

“Now, finally, now!” they say, rubbing together soft hands that have never felt the surprising weight of a Sig Sauer 45. “This time we have the political momentum for sweeping gun control. This time the American people will roll over and let us trample the Second Amendment beneath jackbooted executive order or congressional fiat.”

“Let no good crisis go to waste,” right, Rahm (Emmanuel)?

Well, not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”

No, “shall not” means shall not.

There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.

And this whole “assault weapons ban” angle? Sensationalist propaganda. I prefer to call them “defense weapons.” Contrary to left-wing revisionist pabulum, the Second Amendment’s not about squirrel hunting.

Notice a trend here? What do Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Colorado’s Century 16 theatre and Columbine have in common? They’re all “gun free zones.”

Places you don’t see mass murder and mayhem? Well, there’s a reason bad guys largely avoid shooting-up gun shows, ranges, households with signs that say: “This home insured by Smith & Wesson” and Texas in general. It’s because they know – even while thick-skulled, liberals don’t – that, as recently noted by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Oh, that rather than “gun free zone,” Sandy Hook had a sign reading: “Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempts to harm those herein will be met with deadly force.” Might some of those beautiful babies have still died if the P.E. coach and four MP5-bearing teachers had ended the bloodshed soon after it began? Perhaps. But how many precious lives could have been saved?

No, you won’t disarm me. You’re not going to neuter my household and tear away my ability to defend my wife and precious babies like Dad did all those years ago.

I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into utter chaos and into a second civil war.

But then again, that may be exactly what they have in mind.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Read more:



An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control

January 14, 2013 by

An Open Letter To The Elected Class Regarding Gun Control


Dear ______________:

I realize it is customary to begin missives to elected representatives with the words Honorable Senator ______________ or Honorable Representative ______________, but I believe that title must be earned. Frankly, you (I am referring to you individually and to Congress as a whole) have not done so and, therefore, do not deserve to be addressed that way. However, the purpose of this letter is not to criticize you, but to inform you about what is happening in the country you were elected to serve.

According to a recent poll, Congress’ favorability ranks below lice, cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals. Have you for a moment stopped to wonder why? It’s because a vast majority of Americans believe that Congress no longer represents them, but instead represents big corporations and, mostly, themselves and their cronies. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal is a perfect example. It socked a tax increase on 80 percent of American workers while doling out $76 billion in government money (which means my money) through special tax favors to large corporations, such as General Electric, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and DIAGEO, and to Hollywood and green energy companies. According to a recent column in The Washington Examiner, Senator Max Baucus’ (Fascist-Mont.) former staffers who are now lobbyists all got their clients millions of dollars in special benefits from the fiscal cliff deal. In return, Baucus received thousands of dollars in political contributions from those companies’ political action committees. Americans, myself included, believe this is standard operating procedure in Washington, D.C. And there is talk that additional tax increases on the middle class are on the way.

Upon your inauguration, you swore an oath, with your hand on a Bible, to uphold and defend the Constitution. You have repeatedly violated that oath by passing unConstitutional laws like the USA Patriot Act (and subsequent extensions) and the National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and suspends habeas corpus. If I’m not mistaken, these unConstitutional laws contain provisions that in some way violate Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. That’s quite a feat for two laws.

We live in a Nation that goes far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in 1984. Our emails are read, our conversations are listened to, our cars have tracking devices and there are cameras everywhere watching our every move. Law enforcement has devices that can look through our clothes and into our cars and homes, and surveillance drones are patrolling our skies. Travelers are treated as criminals who must be strip searched or patted down before being allowed to fly — and sometimes before being allowed to board trains or buses. Many of us feel this is tyranny.

Now, in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a great hue and cry among the elected class and the mainstream media about guns and gun violence. To hear them tell it, every gun owner in America is a potential mass murderer, especially those who happen to own a sporting rifle. You and I know that is balderdash.

The anti-gun lobby loves to pull out figures and statistics that it claims show that America is the most violent place on the planet, saying that if guns were simply banned, America would be a crime-free utopia. Let me give you some real statistics. Yes, the recent shootings at Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., were tragic and senseless. Do you know what their common denominators are? Both occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” That means the shooters who made conscious choices to disregard our laws were able to freely attack a group of adults who were restricted by their desire to obey our laws from defending themselves and the children in their charge. Both shooters, as is the case with the vast majority of recent mass shooters, were on prescription psychotropic drugs prior to the attacks.

According to FBI crime data from 2011, rifles (of which the misnamed “assault rifle” is a subset) were used in only 323 of 8,583 firearms murders. This is a continuation of a long-established trend in which the rifle is the least-used of all firearm weapons involved in murders. Rifle use as a murder weapon even ranks below knives, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) and hands and feet.

In other words, rifles of all types kill less than one person per day. And fewer than 100 people are killed each year by rifles with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. According to, from 1982 through 2012 sporting rifles have been employed in mass shootings 35 times. They were used only three times in 2012. In those three attacks, 52 people died. Since the Sandy Hook shooting on Dec. 14, 40 juveniles (statistically speaking) have died in shootings using a weapon other than a sporting rifle. THAT’S JUST ONE MONTH.

Meanwhile, according to Childhelp, more than five children each day — or more than 1,825 per year — are killed by parental abuse. I realize that thinking about the 20 children gunned down by a drug-addled, mentally unstable man is gut-wrenching. But since the Sandy Hook shooting, about 10 times as many children have died at the hands of their parents, and almost twice as many have been killed in juvenile gang crimes. Why don’t these seem to concern you? Could it be because the media are not interested in talking about it and it won’t get you the “face time” you desire? Why aren’t you addressing the topic of the widespread administration of psychotropic drugs and their common link to mass shootings? Is it because you stand to lose political contributions from the medical-industrial complex?

Gun grabbers love to hold Great Britain up as a model of what happens when guns are banned. Well, let’s compare U.S. and U.K. crime statistics. Britain is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Contrast that with the United States, which has a violent crime rate of only 386.3 per 100,000. That’s about one-fifth the rate of violent crime in the U.K. And this has trended down since the ban on “assault weapons” ended in 2004.

In the U.K., the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is the knife. In 2006, there was one knife crime committed in Britain for every 374 people. In the U.S. in 2006, there was one gun crime for every 750 people. In other words, a person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in the United States.

What about guns? The media frenzy that followed the Dunblane massacre led the British government to pass the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Handgun owners were required to turn their guns over to the government, and those who sought to follow the law did so. But the Act didn’t end mass shootings. Another one occurred in 2010. However, within 10 years after the gun ban was enacted, gun crimes had almost doubled. British police are now arming themselves in response to armed gangs. Meanwhile, British citizens are helpless against attacks by criminals wielding knives, clubs, rocks, ropes, chains, axes and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

It also did not have the effect of ending gun crimes. From April 2010 through March 2011, there were 60 shooting homicides in the U.K., despite an almost complete ban on guns. And the number of annual shootings continues to increase.

What the law has done is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, as in the case of Paul Clarke, a taxi driver who found a shotgun in his yard and turned it into the police only to be arrested for possessing it, and Iraq War veteran Danny Nightingale, who was given a Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had trained. That gun was packed in his bags by colleagues when he left Iraq to bury two friends who were killed in action. When the gun was located, Nightingale was forced to plead guilty to possessing it in order to avoid a five-year sentence.

Since the “assault weapons” ban in the United States ended in 2004, gun crimes in the United States have decreased. Not only that, but according to statistics by the Department of Justice, as the number of guns per 1,000 U.S. citizens has increased, the number of serious violent crimes per 1 million population has dropped.

Now to the mood of the country. Americans have been pushed and pushed until they are near the brink. Much of the blame for their anger falls on a government that is out of touch with middle America and tone deaf to its pleas. Most Americans see Congresses past and present inserting fingers into every aspect of daily life: whether it’s the amount of water that can pass through a toilet or the type of light bulb can be used or how much ethanol has to be in gasoline or how one can use his own property or what type of health insurance he must pay for. Now comes the threat that law-abiding Americans will have to surrender their guns — which Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (Communist-Calif.) proposed bill will require — and be restricted from purchasing a gun simply because it looks frightening, carries a high-capacity magazine and a bunch of pointed-headed, intellectual, overeducated elitists have decided it is not “needed” for hunting. And banning large capacity magazines is attacking a problem that is statistically insigificant.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights — as were all the first 10 Amendments — to restrict what government can do. It was designed to ensure that Americans could deter or, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government — you know, the type of government that Representative Jerrold Nadler (Communist-N.Y.) would institute because he believes, as he told a reporter recently, “that the state should have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” When the state has “a monopoly on legitimate violence,” Americans are no longer citizens; they are subjects. Americans will not become subjects.

The 2nd Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to ensure Americans could hunt or defend themselves against criminals, so the argument that we “don’t need” guns with “large capacity clips (sic)” — by the way, the proper word is magazines — is a non sequitur. How do I know this? Here are the words of some of our Founding Fathers:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good — George Washington

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, –who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them… — George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry

Despite what you and those of your ilk seem to believe, it is not the job of Congress or the President to decide what Americans “need” or for what purpose. Americans are quite capable of deciding that for themselves. Nowhere does the Constitution give you the authority to legislate weapons in any way. Nor does the President have this authority, as all laws are to come from the legislative branch, per Article 1, Section 8.

Many, if not most, Americans feel there are already ample gun laws in place. In fact, an argument can be made that many if not all current gun laws violate the Constitution — not that unConstitutional laws seem to bother you people. But I can assure you that, should a bill be passed by Congress and signed by the President that in any way approaches the one being proposed by Feinstein, there will be blood in the streets once Federal agents begin knocking on doors of gun owners to fingerprint and register them. Feinstein’s proposed bill makes many weapons non-transferable, which is the equivalent of weapons confiscation. This will be resisted, as will registration and fingerprinting of gun owners.

And you can tell the President that any executive orders that infringes on the 2nd Amendment will also be ignored and resisted. You see, your passage of laws — or executive orders or whatever you want to call them — that are unConstitutional do not make them any less unConstitutional. Nor does consent to those unConstitutional laws by the Supreme Court give them validity.

Our rights come from our Creator, not government. Therefore, government cannot take them away.

In closing, I want to urge you to consider at great length what you will be starting if, in response to a senseless criminal act, you pass additional burdensome laws on people who have no desire nor inclination to commit criminal acts with the firearms they own — laws that would not reduce gun crime or prevent future Sandy Hook-style massacres but would only add burden and expense to lawful, legitimate gun owners. Gun crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals are criminals because they choose to ignore the laws. Writing additional laws will not serve as a deterrent.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by gang bangers and criminals, many of whom are prohibited from possessing a gun under current laws. For the most part, they obtain their guns illegally: either on the black market or by theft. Those committing gun crimes with legitimately purchased weapons are rare outliers.

As proven in Great Britain and Australia, additional gun control laws will neither end nor deter those with criminal intent from committing criminal acts. They will serve only to put the law-abiding public in further danger. That danger will come from two places: the criminal class that will see undefended citizens as easy targets and the Federal agents who will be tasked with enforcing unConstitutional laws.

But those Federal agents tasked to register and/or confiscate weapons will be putting themselves at risk as well, and any violence that results will be on your hands. The threat of arrest or death will cause some to give up their arms peaceably. But as was the case on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord when the British came to confiscate arms and weapons, there will be many patriots who rise up to resist this usurpation. I have spoken to a number of current and former members of the U.S. military who say they will be a part of that resistance group. These are people who have already shown a willingness to die in order to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I pray to God that you enter into any gun control negotiations prayerfully and with a full understanding of the mood of the country. You have been warned.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Livingston

January 15, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Piers Morgan filming Britain's Got Ta...

Piers Morgan, a British talent show MC? How deliciously humiliating! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


MASTERFUL: Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro TORCHES Piers Morgan and his straw men


 The Right Scoop 


Posted by The Right Scoop on January 10th, 2013 in Politics


This is absolutely a MUST WATCH. Ben Shapiro takes on a very smug Piers Morgan and decimates him. He starts out by pointing out how Morgan bullies his interviewers by standing on the graves of the little children that died in Newtown which quickly draws Morgan’s ire. But it’s absolutely true. Even last night with Larry Pratt Morgan accused him of having no empathy for the children. Of course Morgan’s response to Shapiro is “how dare you!”


Shapiro also tries to get Morgan to agree that banning pistols would be more effective than banning assault rifles since most murders are carried out by semi-automatic pistols. But for some reason Morgan says that’s where he draws the line because he respects the 2nd amendment. He just wants to ban guns like the AR-15 because that’s what is used in these massacres. But then Shapiro points out that the Sandy Hook shooter had 2 pistols on him…and well, it’s like trying to get milk out of a wall to try and get Morgan to understand anything logical.


But I tell you, the whole thing is quite masterful on Shapiro’s part and he continually hammers Morgan at every go even when it came to the conspiracy word ‘tyranny’. I’ll let you watch to see how Shapiro handles that.





To Ben Shapiro, a fallacious label has already usurped our Constitutional Republic, and that label is Democracy.  In turn a Democracy is the very system that can, and will, devolve into an oppressive and tyrannical rule!  STOP allowing others to label the US as a Democracy!  That is truly absurd!  We are a Constitutional Republic!  If you do not know the difference, then find out.  It is imperative if we are to save this nation from falling down completely. 

Shapiro, rightly accused Morgan of standing on the graves of dead children, and Morgan was visibly enraged.  What Shapiro ought to have added was that not only is he standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, he is spitting on the graves of every single man, woman, and child who fought and died, in the name of freedom, from the first day of our fight against a tyrannical monarchy, and a fight that we carry on today.  How is it Morgan has anything at all to say about our country?  He is merely an ex-mc of a British talent show!  Someone ought to remind him of the humiliation he should feel!

Also, Shapiro paints too broadly the mental health issue and includes too many people with mental health diagnoses.  Most are not dangerous, by far.  Psychosis is the term we all should be using when discussing weapons bans for the mentally ill.  Criminals and psychotics are the two groups that should be considered.  These are the only groups in need of a watchful eye, and even then, not all in these groups are murderers and criminally insane.  We certainly do need a better understanding of mental illness and all of its varying degrees, and we must have it before implementing a knee-jerk weapons ban!  That is, IF this really is about saving lives and not about disarming civilians for nefarious purposes.

When Morgan, and others like him, use words such as, “why” and “need,” our first response should be, “because it is our Constitutional right, you doofus foreigner!”  And furthermore, people like Morgan, who believe they know better than anyone else how to run our lives, are narcissistic bullies who aren’t happy unless they are in control of others.  WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!  When we stop demanding, out loud, our Constitutional rights, we give up and hand over another part of liberty to a Democracy, standing at the ready to take more and more and more, until we are all in chains.  If we can save the intended Constitutional Republic, we will see the end of this oppression.





January 11, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Gun-Grabbing Legislation Sweeps Nation

by Ben Shapiro 9 Jan 2013, 7:04 AM PDT

Remember when the left pretended they liked the Second Amendment? That’s passé. Today, Democrats around the country are preparing for a big gun grab, the likes of which the Republic has never before seen. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has actually publicly pitched all-out gun confiscation (or alternatively, forced gun buybacks), is now preparing grandiose new legislation designed to strip New Yorkers of “assault weapons,” as well as restrict the size of magazines. In the only provision actually designed to reduce crime, Cuomo will also propose harsher penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime.

Cuomo recognizes that what’s(sic)

Andrew Cuomo - Caricature


he’s doing is politically divisive. But in today’s America, he also recognizes that he’ll be rewarded by the media for cramming down political divisive gun control, even if it does nothing to stop violence. “It’s a very divisive topic,” said Cuomo. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against, some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it … Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing.”

Cuomo isn’t the only New York politician stumping for gun confiscation. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who dreams of the Nanny State, has now produced and distributed a new commercial for Mayors Against Gun Violence, showing the mother of a murder victim asking, “How many more children must die before Washington does something to end our gun violence problem?”

But the push for gun confiscation isn’t limited to New York. In Iowa, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer told a local newspaper, “We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.” First off, guns don’t run. Politicians do. Which is why they’re playing the Sandy Hook tragedy for all it’s worth. And Muhlbauer certainly is. “We need to get them off the streets – illegally – and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them. We can’t have those out there … Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”

Chicago, which already has both some of the nation’s strongest gun laws and some of the worst rates of crimes involving guns, is calling for further gun regulation. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is traveling the state asking for the Illinois legislature to ban “assault weapons”; Illinois is already considering a bill that would ban vast swaths of semi-automatic weapons and magazines, as well as destroying shooting ranges.

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley is pushing for more gun regulation. In California, legislators are considering harsh regulation on sale of ammunition. In Florida, the Democratic House is looking to prevent concealed weapon permit holders from taking their guns to public events. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie says, “you’ve got to do stuff on guns.”

And in Connecticut, where Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza violated dozens of laws, the legislature has decided that the solution is more laws. With grieving mothers apparently berating legislature members, the legislature feels the pressure to do so. A new bill proposed by State Senator Beth Bye would create a massive 50 percent sales tax on the sale of ammo and magazines, ban ammo buying via internet, and limit the sale of ammo to those with a gun permit. Naturally, Bye is standing on the bodies of the children of Sandy Hook to pursue that agenda: “I just feel a personal mandate,” she says. “We’re only going to have one opportunity to do something like this. I want to take this opportunity and make sure we do something significant.”

Never let a good crisis go to waste. The left never does.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, and author of the book Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America(Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).



One of the arguments for gun confiscation is based upon the notion that the guns wanted are not appropriate for hunting.  But this defense is beside the point.  Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms, which are G-U-N-S, GUNS, you Liberal, dictatorial predators and perpetrators of our massive takedown.  Liberals disguise their goals as a case for the best interest of the community, while disregarding the rights and best interests of the individual, outlined in our US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In fact, the Founding Fathers not only hoped, but requested, that the People stand up against and remove an oppressive government when and if it became necessary.  That very expectation was the reason for our Second Amendment and our right to bear arms.  If we cannot protect ourselves from criminals, we cannot protect ourselves from tyranny.

The Liberals use a “best-interest,” dictatorial agenda for everyone except themselves.  To them, taking our guns is an absolute ambition even while they are claiming “we don’t want them all.”  Yeah, sure.  They typically do not know the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic, and they call magazines “clips.”  “Stupid is as stupid does,” Forest Gump said, and unless the demagogue dictators plan to keep their own firearms, they will soon find themselves in the same oppressive state they are herding us toward.  However, due to the degree of narcissism running rampant within the Liberal community, I suspect none of them think they will be enslaved with the rest of us.  That, at least, puts a smirk on my lips.

The fundamental need for gun control is that disarming a nation is the first step toward usurpation of a government.  In fact, that move is essential and the only way to control the masses, which are unlikely to be in favor of such a takeover.  Removing our arms and our right to bear arms is part and parcel of the United Nations Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, a far-reaching global plan to create a one world rule under which there are no individual rights, no personal property, no Constitution and no Bill of Rights, but which claims to support the best interest of the Community, even thought what those best interests are continually change.  This system is called Communitarianism–which disregards all previous notions and degrees of freedom.   If we cannot fight this, the perpetrators will have an easier time of it.  The end goal is a world ruled by one government, for one purpose; to force the masses onto complete government dependence, the erasure of all world history, and the confiscation of all independent thought, desires, and needs, just to name a few.  The term, “Communitarianism,” is only one of a multitude of new, Orwellian-speak terms and phrases that will completely detour our way of thinking and the understanding of our surroundings and of each other.  The Liberal Progressives call this kind of world, “Utopia!”


January 9, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Surprise! The Payroll Tax Hike Obliterated an Entire Year’s Worth of Wage Gains

The Senate-backed “fiscal cliff” bill that managed to pass both chambers last week failed to reinstate the payroll tax holiday, TheBlaze reported at the time.  Consequently, everyone will see their taxes go up. In fact, as Brad Plummer of the Washington Post points out, the payroll tax hike (which is technically returning the tax to its previous rate of 6.2 percent, up from its temporary rate of 4.2 percent), will completely wipe out an entire year’s worth of wage gains:

Surprise! The Payroll Tax Hike Obliterated an Entire Years Worth of Wage GainsCourtesy Credit Suisse

From Credit Suisse [via the Financial Times]:  We look at average weekly earnings of all employees on private non-farm payrolls: $818.69 in December. The 2% payroll tax increase clips $16.37 a week from take-home pay. … That’s the equivalent of losing all the 2012 gain in weekly earnings in one month.

Obviously, with shrinking paychecks and less take-home pay, Americans are expected to spend a whole lot less this year. This could put a serious hurt on an already struggling U.S. economy.

“The New York Fed’s survey data found that the payroll tax cut has been a particularly efficient form of stimulus over the past two years — Americans reported spending between 28 and 43 percent of the savings, far more than they have for previous tax cuts,” Plummer explains.  “And most workers expect to cut back on spending significantly now that the payroll tax cut is vanishing. The average household making $50,000 a year will see its payroll taxes rise about $1,000 this year,” he adds.  The typical household is expected to reduce spending by about $710 this year to counter the effects of the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, the New York Fed’s survey data shows.  Whether or not Americans will actually cut back on their spending due to the tax hike is uncertain. What we do know, however, is that a) everyone’s taxes are going up and b) the increase has done away with an entire year’s worth of wage gains.

January 8, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Portraits & autographs of the signers of the D...

Portraits & autographs of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States Polski: Fragment preambuły Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Will Our Military Fire Upon Us? Survey Says….

January 8, 2013 at 5:00 am / by

military woman

Recently a young soldier was upset enough to contact in regards to a survey he was asked to take in his official capacity. This isn’t just any survey and definitely not something you would expect to be filling out when you just signed up to defend and protect the sovereignty of your beloved country and her citizens with your very life if called upon! So just what is this survey?  This military questionnaire is not new and has been quietly lurking around since the Clinton years, waiting for the time when it can be fully played out and reap its usefulness. I believe that time is now. The timing is something of a magnitude in which I now feel deserves the full attention of the American people considering we have a sitting President who rules by executive order and has openly declared gun control as one of his top priorities of the new year. Add in the facts that Obama and his administration is cutting defense spending while giving more power to the UN and building up alternate civilian forces as he is trying to unarm the American people and we can see we are heading for a perfect storm.

This particular survey was first given in 1995 right after the “Clinton Weapons Ban” and was passed out to a few hundred Marines in 29 Palms, California. This was not done by the Pentagon but according to an article in New American Magazine in October of 1995 written by John F. McManus, this survey was supposedly part of an academic project by Navy Lt. Ernest Guy Cunningham. Not surprisingly the survey alarmed many of the marines and copies soon were circulated among gun rights supporters. Cunningham quickly told McManus that he himself is a member of the NRA and didn’t agree with the tone of the questions that the survey was only intended to confirm and then pass on to the higher authorities his fears about “the lack of knowledge among the soldiers regarding the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans.” I wonder what type of grade he earned for such a useful and overused questionnaire. Sounds like the way they cover their tracks even today! Always make the wrong sound right.

Here are two of the questions in the survey; please consider the importance:

Strongly agree/Disagree/Agree Strongly/Agree/No Opinion

45: I would swear to the following code: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Do you wonder how most of our military answered these questions? Does this chill you to your core? It should! You can read the full survey here:

Next time you hear people say it is okay to give up our guns to make a safer America, or that it is ok that the TSA treats us as lesser beings than cattle, or even that it is a good thing for the DHS to train our police forces on how to control urban situations against “home grown terrorists”, remind them that they are the reason our freedoms are dissipating before our very eyes. Thank God in Heaven we still have our Vets and brave military men and women who want us to open our eyes and see what is going on in the ranks of our “protectors”.


U.S. Armed Forces Survey: This is the questionnaire that was given in 1994 to select groups of U.S. armed forces personnel. Notice the references to the U.N., the firing on American civilians and the correlations of the two aforementioned. Note questions 8‑17 deal with the use of U.S. federal armed forces intervening in the civilian affairs of the U.S. public under the pretense of policemen. According to the U.S. Constitution (posse comitatus law) No federal forces are to be used in the civil control of the populace. Also note question 46 for a stunning question concerning the use of federal forces.

Note questions 18‑45 deals entirely with the United Nations, which is really the heart of this survey. Questions 1‑7 are only lead in questions for the rest of the survey.

Results to the article (paper file) is “Incredible” – The following is all taken in order: Combat Arms Survey: This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to non‑traditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In part II, place an “X” in the space provided for your response.

Part I. Demographics:

1: What service are you in?

2: What is your pay grade? (e.g. E‑7, O‑7)

3: What is your MOS code and description?

4: What is your highest level of education in years?

5: How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?

6: How many months did you serve in Somalia?

7: What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?

Part II. Attitudes: Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?

8: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

9: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

10: Security at national events? (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

11: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

12: Substitute teachers in public schools?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

13: Community assistance programs? (e.g. landscaping, environmental cleanup, road repair, animal control)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

14: Federal and State prison guards?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

15: National emergency police force?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

16: Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the F.B.I., or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

17: Border patrol? (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Do you fell that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for any of the following United Nations missions?

18: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

19: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

20: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

21: Peace keeping?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

22: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

23: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under the command of non‑U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?

24: Drug enforcement?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

25: Disaster relief? (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

26: Environmental disaster clean‑up?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

27: Peace keeping?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

28: Nation building? (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school systems, develops or improve public transportation system..etc.)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

29: Humanitarian relief? (e.g. food, and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

30: Police Action? (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non‑U.S. officers)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

Consider the following statements:

31: The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises, under U.S. command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

32: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S./U.N. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

33: The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control during these exercises?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

34: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

35: U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

36: U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non‑commissioned officers (NCO’s) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

37: It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team? (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

38: It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company


(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

39: I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander‑in‑Chief to the U.N. Secretary General?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

40: I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

41: I feel my unit’s combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

42: I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

43: I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. command?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

44: I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

45: I would swear to the following code: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

46: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?

(___) (___) (___)

(___) (___)

Strongly agree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree No Opinion

End of questionnaire

Now ask yourself these questions:

1: Are we to turn over our armed forces to the U.N.?

2: Can we be the U.N.’s world policeman?

3: Or the world’s policeman on our own?

4: Should we give oath of allegiance to a foreign power?

5: Should we compromise our U.S. Constitution in the name of world government?

6: Who is first, the United States or the rest of the world, specifically the United Nations?

7: Would you rather answer to a world court (United Nations court) or to the courts of the United States?

8: Do you believe you will have any say in a world government or world court (United Nations)?

9: Are you willing to sacrifice national sovereignty for world laws and courts?

10: Is the United Nations better able to dictate our lives to us than we as a country are?


Think about it, that is what this survey was meant to convey, A New World Order Run By the United Nations!

Here are the results of the survey:

Shoot Americans (New World Order Survey of Last Year) Survey Results One In Four Marines would fire! Results are in from the U.S. military “shoot Americans” survey ‑ and they are disquieting By Mike Blair. About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps Base in Southern California. In addition, more than four out of five of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to “participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force.”

The SPOTLIGHT has been provided the results of the survey contained in a master degree thesis, reportedly undertaken by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey California, to determine “unit cohesion” when soldiers are assigned to “non‑traditional missions.” Few stories published in the SPOTLIGHT have created such a stir when it was revealed in this newspaper’s July 25,1994 issue that the survey had been taken at the Marine base. On May 10,1994, the survey was undertaken by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. Cunningham, purportedly as research for his thesis: “Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational control; A Study of their effect on Unit Cohesion,” at the Marine base, located on the South‑east corner of the Mojave Desert, about 70 miles due east of San Bernadino, California, just east of Los Angeles

Received Degree: Cunningham turned in the thesis for printing on March 20 and was graduated from the post Graduate school on March 23, receiving his Master of Science in Manpower, Personnel and Training Analysis degree. According to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officials, Cunningham administrated the survey to 300 Marine veterans of the Persian Gulf War and the earlier invasion of Panama in the base auditorium.

He had the cooperation and permission of the base’s public affairs officer, but Cunningham did not have consent of the base commander, Brig. Gen. Russell H. Sutton. In fact, Sutton did not know about the survey until afterwards. The results of the survey have until now been “classified,” according to a Marine Corps spokesman. The survey contained 46 questions dealing with the Marines’ willingness to perform “non‑traditional” missions. Question 46, dealing with a gun confiscation scenario, jolted both the Marines and Navy, as well as The Department of Defense, numerous members of the House and Senate and virtually every American concerned with the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which grantees the people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

Very Disturbing: This is how the question was posed to the Marines: “The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non‑sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. “Consider the following statement:’I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government’.” The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the statement. According to results given in Cunningham’s thesis, a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question. Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines indicated they would be willing to fire upon U.S. citizens.”

Of that total, 18.67 percent or 56 Marines, indicated they “agree” with the statement, and 7.67 percent or 23 Marines, indicated that “strongly agree.” A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing on citizens.

Of that total, 42.33 percent, or 127 indicated they “strongly disagree” and 19.33 percent or 58, indicated they “disagree.” In is thesis, Cunningham noted: “This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on the response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission.”

In other words, if a commander asked the men of his unit to raise their hands in a simple poll, he could determine the position of such servicemen and those who responded in the affirmative could be tasked for such a mission. This is just one of the reasons the question, not to mention the fact that it was allowed to be asked, is obviously potentially dangerous. In fact, several months before the survey was taken at Twenty‑Nine Palms, the SPOTLIGHT, MODERN GUN and other publications revealed the question posed by Cunningham in his survey had ben asked of members of a U.S. Seal (Sea‑Air‑land) team. In addition, despite Navy and Marine Corps denials, there have been dozens of reports, unconfirmed, that the survey has been given to other servicemen, as well as various law enforcement agents.

Further Surveys? In fact, Cunningham notes: “If the results of this survey elicit concerns in the areas queried, then further studies are warranted. Perhaps a random sample survey should be conducted to determine whether the results of this survey is valid for the entire Marine Corps and/or Army. Also, a survey could provide an indication of the volunteer pool that would seek service in units dedicated to, and specialized in, peacekeeping operations…Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question‑‑an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative‑‑that they would be willing to participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force…” “Furthermore,” Cunningham notes “43.0 percent of the soldiers strongly agreed…”Federal Troops have been restricted from participation with local police authorities to quell domestic violence since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That being the case, it was surprising that these soldiers seemed not to know the legal restrictions placed on them by this act.” He also noted, however, that “In May 1992, 4,000 U.S. Army and Marine Soldiers were ordered by President George Bush to augment city and county law enforcement and state National Guard during the riot in Los Angeles, California following the Rodney King trial. “Since, 1981,” Cunningham states, “the majority of today’s All Volunteer Force has been exposed to and participated in an environment of expanding non‑traditional missions when Congress passed the Military

Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981. This act enabled the Military to participate in the drug war. This cooperative alliance of military and civilian police efforts in the name of national security may have eroded the demarcation between civilian law enforcement and our military institution first established by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”

The results of another question, No. 45, posed by the survey indicates American soldiers are not eager to swear allegiance to the United Nations, although nearly one in four would do so. Question 45 states: “I would swear to the following code:’I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense’.” A total of 69.33 percent, or 208 Marines surveyed, indicated they disagreed, with 117, or 39 percent, indicating they strongly disagreed.

On the other hand, 71 Marines, or 23.66 percent, indicated they would be willing to swear such allegiance to the UN, with 19, or 6.33 percent, indicating they were strongly in favor of doing so. “For thousands of years.” Cunningham notes in his thesis, “military organizations have required their soldiers to swear to some kind of code or allegiance. A code provides a standard for the soldiers to live up to and, in many cases, to die for. A code can be a powerful tool for establishing and sustaining unit cohesion. But what if the mission a solider is assigned to perform counters or confuses the code he has sworn to uphold? Question 45 was presented to determine if the solders would swear to such a code.” No one knows if the American personnel traveling in the helicopter shot down over Iraq [by “friendly fire”] in April 1994 would have sworn allegiance to such a code.

Yet, Vice President Albert Gore stated that these Americans “died in the service of The United Nations.” “It is patently clear,” a retired high ranking Army Officer told The SPOTLIGHT,”that this survey raises some very serious issues, not the least of which is that U.S. servicemen are not being properly educated as to the limits of their service in the civilian sector. This is most dangerous, and, I should think the Congress has an obligation to the people to take a careful look at this, not to mention the people at the Pentagon.”

January 8, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

#myjihad Saudi Arabia:90-year-old Saudi weds 15-year-old girl



#myjihad Saudi Arabia:90-year-old Saudi weds 15-year-old girl.

January 7, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Barack Obama Deutsch: Barack Obama

English: Barack Obama Deutsch: Barack Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


New York congressman introduces bill to abolish presidential term limits

1:24 PM 01/06/2013

Patrick Howley

Democratic New York Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

The bill is a reintroduction of H.J. Res. 17, which Serrano introduced in Congress in January 2011. It was referred to the House judiciary committee, but did not make it to a floor vote.

Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been a longtime goal of Serrano’s, regardless of the sitting president’s political party. Serrano proposed similar resolutions in 1997 and 1999, during  Bill Clinton’s administration, and in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration. He proposed the repeal again in 2009 after Obama took office.

None of his proposals has ever made it to a floor vote.

Democratic Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer also repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Current Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sponsored a bill to repeal the amendment in 1995.

The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by 41 states by 1951. The last president before Roosevelt to prepare for a campaign for a third term was Woodrow Wilson, who pulled out of the 1920 nominating race to avoid deadlocking the Democratic convention in San Francisco.

Read more:

January 6, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Stafford Hospital: the scandal that shamed the NHS

Patients lying starving, soiled and in pain. Over-worked staff dogged by targets. Laura Donnelly tells how a culture of fear meant that ticking boxes trampled over the basic needs of the most vulnerable.

Stafford Hospital: the scandal that shamed the NHS

By the time Stafford hospital’s failings were exposed by regulators up to 1,200 patients had died needlessly Photo: PA

Laura Donnelly

By , Health Correspondent

7:20AM GMT 06 Jan 2013

It was the scandal that shamed the NHS.

Hundreds of hospital patients died needlessly. In the wards, people lay starving, thirsty and in soiled bedclothes, buzzers droning hopelessly as their cries for help went ignored. Some received the wrong medication; some, none at all.

Over 139 days, the public inquiry into the Stafford hospital scandal has heard testimony from scores of witnesses about how an institution which was supposed to care for the most vulnerable instead became a place of danger.

Decisions about which patients to treat were left to receptionists, inexperienced junior doctors put in charge of critically-ill patients, and nurses switched off equipment because they did not know how to use it.

Desperate relatives told the inquiry, chaired by Robert Francis QC, how patients were left so dehydrated that some began drinking from flower vases.

Related Articles

By the time the hospital’s failings were exposed by regulators, in 2009, up to 1,200 patients had died needlessly between 2005 and 2008.

It happened in simple terms because managers attempted to cut costs and meet Labour’s central targets, so they could achieve the coveted “foundation status” for Mid Staffordshire NHS trust – enforcing 160 job cuts as they tried to succeed.

Now a public inquiry, which opened more than two years ago, is attempting to address fundamental two questions. How was it that the regulatory and supervisory systems which should protect all patients failed so catastrophically – and what is to stop it happening again?

Mr Francis and his team have heard from 290 witnesses, and considered more than one million pages of evidence, in an inquiry which has so far cost almost £13 million. Repeatedly, the evidence has led to one question – whether a “culture of fear” means that the demands of the NHS hierarchy take precedence over the most basic needs of patients.

The inquiry heard that at Stafford, NHS targets ruled supreme.

Orders were cascaded down the management hierarchy, from the executive board, to the operational managers, to the senior nurses and matrons; nurses and doctors who failed to meet them were threatened with the sack.

It led to junior nurses and doctors abandoning seriously-ill patients to treat minor cases who were in danger of breaching the four-hour Accident & Emergency (A&E) waiting time limit.

For the same reason, patients were often moved out of casualty soaked in urine or covered in faeces, because the target – to admit or discharge patients within four hours – was under threat.

Meanwhile, nurses were instructed by senior nurse colleagues to falsify waiting times, and to claim that patients had been seen more quickly than they were.

During the hearings, one young nurse, Helene Donnelly, told how she tried to speak out but said: “I’d seen people die, needlessly I think in some cases, but certainly with a lack of dignity or respect, and that was so distressing to me … it wasn’t just once or twice that happened, it was relatively frequently.”

After she made a complaint, other staff threatened to physically harm her.

Despite an internal investigation into the concerns raised by Mrs Donnelly in 2007, no changes were made, she said, and she was left to work with the colleagues she had accused of malpractice. She left the following year, and took a job at another NHS hospital.

Dr Christopher Turner, a specialist registrar in Stafford A&E which is now a consultant, described a culture of bullying and harassment towards staff, especially nurses. He witnessed nurses leaving meetings in tears, after being told that their jobs were at risk if the four-hour target was breached.

Often, patients who were approaching the time limit were put in a clinical decision unit – a “dumping ground” where they received inadequate care, but which allowed nurses to claim that the target had been achieved. An emergency assessment unit was frequently misused for the same reason, becoming so chaotic that staff nicknamed it “Beirut”.

NHS managers staffed the hospital so thinly that there were never enough consultants to properly supervise junior doctors, who took much of their instructions from the senior nurses and matrons who enforced the targets.

At nights it was worse. After 9pm, the most senior surgeon left in charge was often a junior doctor, with little experience of emergency surgery.

Many of the nurses had never been shown how to use basic life-saving equipment, such as cardiac monitors, which identify whether a patient is deteriorating; some turned them off.

When patients arrived at A&E, there were not enough nurses to assess them. In fact, the task was left to receptionists, who took decisions based on a “gut instinct”.

Meanwhile, on the wards, patients – most of them elderly – were left in agony and screaming for pain relief, as their loved ones desperately begged for help.

The human toll was dreadful. In the course of 18 months, one family lost four members, including a newborn baby girl, after a catalogue of failings by the hospital.

Kelsey Lintern, 39, from Cannock, in Staffordshire, lost first her six-day-old daughter Nyah, then Laurie Gethin, her sister, 37; Tom Warriner, 48, her uncle; and finally Lillian Wood-Latta, 80, her grandmother.

Nyah had to be delivered in January 2007 by Mrs Lintern’s mother, Shirley, because a midwife was not attending – after another had tried to give Mrs Lintern a painkiller to which her notes said she was allergic, a potentially fatal error.

Nyah was born not breathing, she was resuscitated, and discharged after two days, despite the family’s fears she was still seriously ill. Four days later, she died, with a post-mortem disclosing four holes in her heart. Mrs Lintern said it might not have been possible to save her child, but that the hospital should at least have realised there was a problem.

Three months later Mrs Gethin died of lung, bone and lymph cancer, at the age of 37. It had taken 18 months to be diagnosed, despite clear symptoms, and only been detected when she was scanned at another hospital.

In January 2008, Mr Warriner, died after his intestine was accidentally pierced in an operation for bowel cancer. Then Mrs Wood-Latta, 80, died hungry and dehydrated after suffering a stroke. The family said hospital staff failed to give her enough fluids.

All around the wards there were lapses. Patients were left without medication, food and drink, and left on commodes. Basic hygiene was neglected: a woman was left unwashed for the last four weeks of her life.

Relatives tried to keep their loved ones clean, scrubbing down beds and furniture and even bringing in clean linen. One consultant described how amid the chaos, it seemed at though nurses became “immune to the sound of pain”.

For those whose relatives were deprived of care and even food and drink it was difficult to understand why there were so few nurses to tend to patients.

They could little imagine that in August 2005 in the hospital trust’s executive offices, a board led by Martin Yeates had decided to embark on cost-cutting plans as it attempted to secure “foundation trust” status.

Foundation hospitals were a flagship policy for Labour, supposedly the best in the country, and given many freedoms from Whitehall, including over executive pay, and holding board meetings in secret.

The trust needed to convince Monitor, the regulators, that it could meet key targets, particularly the four-hour wait, on a lower budget.

The NHS trust was desperately short-staffed, with 100 vacancies for nurses alone, but from 2005 onwards it embarked on widespread job cuts. Between 2006 and 2008 160 nurses left the trust either through retirement or redundancy; £1.3 million was spent on redundancy payments.

The board’s obsession about the project left executives blind to the impact cuts would have on patients.

Wards became more reliant on unqualified and untrained healthcare assistants, employed at much lower cost than nurses. On one floor of the hospital, the staff shortages became so extreme that two nurses were left to care for 40 patients.

In September 2007, Bella Bailey, 86, was admitted. Her daughter Julie became so horrified by the care her mother received, and the screams of agony from those left untended around her, that she and her family took turns every night by her mother’s bed. Complaints fell on deaf ears. A letter to Mr Yeates was not answered.

Her mother died after eight weeks of suffering, Miss Bailey began campaigning to ensure no other family went through such torment.

After she wrote to a local newspaper to describe the family’s experience, and to ask others to speak out, she was inundated with letters, and calls.

What nobody knew was that in April 2007 statistics had shown that death rates at the hospital were dramatically higher than elsewhere in the country.

West Midlands strategic health authority, which had responsibility for supervising the hospital, commissioned which took more than a year to decide – wrongly – that the flaws lay with the data not the care being given by the hospital trust.

As a result no action was taken to examine the actual quality of care at the hospital. In July 2008, a month after the report on the figures was produced, the authority’s chief executive, Cynthia Bower, was promoted to run the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which would be given oversight of all health and social care in England and Wales.

By now, the trust’s bid for foundation trust status had been approved in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, then a junior health minister.

Amid the celebrations when the status was granted the following February, the trust’s chief executive Mr Yeates told local papers the hospital had made “the premier league” while all staff were given £25 Marks & Spencer voucher.

The authorisation was made by one regulator – Monitor, which is responsible for foundation trusts – without being told that another regulator, the Healthcare Commission, later replaced by the CQC, was poised to announce a full-scale investigation of the trust, because of its concerns. Within weeks of the celebrations, the year-long probe was under way.

It was another year, before, in March 2009, the scandal was finally exposed. By now, Mr Yeates, the chief executive of the trust, and Toni Brisby, its chairman, had already quietly stepped down.

The investigation into Stafford found that failings were such that between 2005 and 2008, there were between 400 and 1,200 “excess deaths” – in other words, up to 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at a hospital with a similar catchment area. In the regulator’s last act, Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, described the findings as “appalling” – the worst that the regulator had ever uncovered.

Gordon Brown, then prime minister, said that what went on was “inexcusable” and a plethora of reviews and inquiries were announced – but crucially, not a public inquiry to establish how the systems supposed to supervise hospitals – the health authorities, and a labyrinthine regulatory system – failed so catastrophically.

In opposition, the Conservatives called for such an inquiry, which was also demanded by patients’ group Cure the NHS and by a campaign led by this newspaper.

On 9 June 2010, just a month after the Coalition was formed, Andrew Lansley, then health secretary, announced that a public inquiry would go ahead, and now its findings are about to be sent to Jeremy Hunt, his successor.

For those who died or suffered its findings are too late; for the millions who depend on the NHS they will be absolutely crucial.

January 6, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Tens of Thousands Stand with Hobby Lobby

Tens of Thousands Stand with Hobby Lobby

Jan 5, 2013

By Todd Starnes

Tens of thousands of Americans across the nation today are showing their support for Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned company now facing millions of dollars in fines for refusing to comply with Obamacare’s contraception mandate.


The grassroots “Standing with Hobby Lobby” was launched through social media and has since been embraced by religious liberty groups and Christians nationwide. Organizers say it’s an opportunity to support the company “and its owners’ brave stand against the anti-conscience mandate’s assault on religious freedom.hobbylobby

“This is not just about Hobby Lobby–this is about you,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. “If Hobby Lobby is forced to eat the ‘king’s meat’ and ‘bow on their knees’ to a human government in direct conflict with their fundamentals of faith, then how long will it be before they come for you and your family?”

The appreciation day is similar to one Huckabee helped launch to support Chick-fil-A after that Christian-owned company came under attack from militant homosexual groups.

“Support Hobby Lobby, a company that obeys God rather than men,” the Family Research Council declared.

Sarah Palin and Mark Levin say you need to get Todd’s book – Dispatches from Bitter America. Click here to get your copy!

Hobby Lobby, a national arts and crafts chain with more than 500 stores in 41 states, is now facing $1.3 million in daily fines after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied their emergency request to block enforcement of the Obamacare contraception mandate.


The company is owned by the Green family, devout, evangelical Christians. They believe “it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured” and they seek to honor God by operating their company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”

The family believes the Obamacare mandate to provide the morning-after and week-after pills is a violation of their religious convictions.

“To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs,” Becket Fund attorney Kyle Duncan wrote in a statement.

Duncan said the company would continue to provide health insurance for its employees while they fight the government in court.

“The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them,” the Becket Fund said in a statement. “All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.”

There are now 42 separate lawsuits changing the mandate, the Becket Fund said.

The Green Family

The Green Family

Conservatives praised Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

“God bless this company,” columnist Michelle Malkin told Fox News. “It’s incumbent upon every conservative who believes in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to support those businesses that are standing up and taking the slings and arrows of this discriminatory administration.”

“This is the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen,” wrote columnist Denny Burk. “The first line of the Bill of Rights says this: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Obamacare prohibits the free exercise of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Who’s next?”

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham said President Obama “must step in to stop this madness.”

“It turns out as many feared, the president’s religious exemption to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless,” she said on Fox News. “Unless you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith you don’t receive an exemption. So under that standard, Jesus himself would not qualify. This is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

Ingraham pointed out that in a previous case Sotomayor ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. She held that the meal was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam.

Malkin called it a selective double standard.

“Religious liberty for some, none for others,” she said.

With reporting from Associated Press

Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America – endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy!


January 5, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Jesus Christ - detail from Deesis mos...

English: Jesus Christ – detail from Deesis mosaic, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


UPDATE: DAR Denies They are Censoring Prayers

Posted in Top Stories

UPDATE: DAR Denies They are Censoring Prayers

Jan 3, 2013

By Todd Starnes

The Daughters of the American Revolution, one of the nation’s oldest patriotic organizations, has erased any mention of Jesus Christ in their official book, removed prayers and poems that reference Christian imagery, and directed members to refrain from praying in the name of Christ, an outraged group of members alleged.


The dispute has been brewing for more than a year when DAR members learned that the newly revised Ritual and Missal books – the primary guide for chaplains – were altered. They noticed that the name of Jesus Christ had been omitted.

The DAR president general did not return calls seeking comment for this story.

The members said DAR leadership made the changes to be politically correct and to accommodate new members of other religious beliefs.

A state chaplain in the organization notified members of their concerns in a newsletter.

“The newly updated Missal and Ritual was written to reflect the desire to be considerate of other belief systems,” the statement read. “The Chaplain General uses scripture from both the Old and New Testaments and prays in the name of God without reference Christ. Chapter and district chaplains need to follow the example set by the National Society.”

The statement also reminded members to “appreciate the differences in members’ religious beliefs and to adapt our rituals and prayers to respect these differences.”

That directive has infuriated rank and file members of the DAR – an organization that is deeply rooted in the Christian faith.

Several members of the DAR spoke with Fox News about their concerns – on the condition they remain anonymous.

“They are changing the legacy and intent of the Founding Ladies and rewriting the history of the Daughters of the American Revolution,” one member told Fox News. “How dare they? They’re supposed to be doing it out of inclusion. To me, it’s exclusion. If they are saying it’s because of religious tolerance – my question is – if someone is so incensed over the name of Jesus and words like ‘white crosses’ that reference soldiers who died for America – is it not they who are intolerant?”

“A group of us went through the Ritual and Missal and compared the old version and the new version,” another member told Fox News. “Every single prayer closing in the name of Jesus Christ no longer included the name of Jesus Christ.”

“For 122 years Christianity was included in the Daughters of the American Revolution,” said one member. “Without the name of Jesus Christ it is surely not Christianity. This has never been an issue until December of 2011.”

The DAR was founded in 1890 as a non-profit, non-political volunteer women’s service organization. Membership is open to any woman who can prove they are a lineal descendant of a patriot from the American Revolution. The organization has 170,000 members in 3,000 chapters.

The members said they tried to bring their concerns to the organization’s leadership but were rebuffed.

“The response from the leadership was one of being inclusive and being sensitive to non-Christians and other beliefs,” a member said. “The minority rules instead of the majority.”

One chaplain said it broke her heart to take Jesus out of the prayers and there are reports that some members have resigned.

The members said they were particularly disturbed that the changes were made without the vote or the approval of the 170,000 membership.

And many are perplexed over who might be so offended by the mere mention of the name of Christ.

“Who is it that is so incensed over the name of Jesus and any Christian symbol or reference – that they feel like they have to eliminate it from the Daughters of the American Revolution,” one member asked.

They said Christianity had never been forced on any members but to remove it from the historic organization’s documents is a “deception and twisting of history.”

“They are negating our history, changing our history,” one lady told Fox News. “This country was blessed by God Himself. Most of our Founding Fathers had Bibles in their hands and Jesus in their hearts and therefore America became what America is today. And through the last decade, it’s been a constant chiseling away of our Christian foundation – our Judeo-Christian foundation.”

UPDATE: The Daughters of the American Revolution did not return telephone calls or email seeking comment on the story. However, on Thursday they released a statement calling allegations they have removed the name “Jesus Christ” from their Ritual & Missal “false and incorrect.”

Following is their statement:

“NSDAR is disappointed to learn that false and incorrect information has recently been circulated regarding the 2011 edition of the DAR Ritual and Missal and the use of the name Jesus Christ in prayers and other ceremonial events of the National Society. The purpose of this message is to clarify NSDAR’s position on the matter for anyone who has not previously viewed the blogs written by President General Merry Ann T. Wright.

First, the question was posed by a national media group that if the motto of DAR is God, Home and Country, then “…why is DAR taking out references to God…” in its printed material. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as currently written, the 113 page Ritual and Missal contains over 300 references to “Almighty God,” “Great God our King” (America hymn), “Our Heavenly Father,” “Heavenly Father,” “God of Hosts,” “God,” “Lord,” “Eternal God,” “Your Holy Spirit,” “Lord your God,” “Gracious Lord,” “Almighty and Everlasting God,” “Gracious Father,” and similar variations.

Second, the allegation has been leveled that Chaplains and others have been told not to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Again, this is an absolute falsehood. Each Chaplain and other officers are strongly encouraged to create their own prayers into which they may insert the name of Jesus Christ as deemed appropriate for the occasion and the audience. This is what the President General wrote in her blog of April 10, 2012 when questions about the change to the Ritual and Missal first arose:

The Executive Officers believe that the new Ritual and Missal can be used by members of any faith, substituting words as they wish, changing the prayers to suit the needs of the meeting in which they are being used. At our Executive meetings, knowing that we are all Christian, we pray in the Name of Jesus. When those are present whose faith is unknown, we pray in God’s name. However, we all recognize that when Christians pray in God’s name we are, indeed, praying in Christ’s name because the Christian faith believes in the Trinity of God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We also understand that our Jewish members know God as Jehovah or Yahweh, Muslim members use the name Allah for God and there are those whose spirituality may have a still different higher power or none at all.

We have in no way mandated that one must or must not use the name of Jesus Christ in the prayers. In our DAR rituals, prayers are included. Most of the prayers begin with “Our Father” or “Almighty God” and end “in Your Holy Name.” Christ’s prayer, known as The Lord’s Prayer, the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, Easter and Passover prayers and prayers for other religious observances are included.

The above passage also addresses the last major falsehood: that the name of Christ has been totally removed from the Ritual and Missal. That simply is not the case.

In promoting the importance of freedom of religion upon which our country was founded, our Founding Fathers intended for all religions and not one specific faith to be allowed and respected. The Constitution of the United States of America is clear on this issue as are many of the letters and writings of these great leaders. It was in spirit of our Founding Fathers desire for freedom of religion that the most recent changes to the Ritual and Missal were made.”

Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America – endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy.






January 4, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Sandy Hook Murders crafted to gut 2nd Amendment

Monday, December 17, 2012 13:21

(Before It’s News)

Chocolate Jesus Walks Upon Children and Cries Crocodile Tears!

As he reached far back into his Animatronic memory to produce a single. liquid crocodile tear to display before his servile audience of press corps sycophants, Barack Hussein Obama did his very best to convince his electronic world-wide viewers that he really and truly did care for the innocent children and adults who were murdered in cold blood at a gun free zone at The Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut this past Friday.   Undoubtedly, he relied on Americans’ noted non-ability to recall any details beyond the latest “Dancing with the Stars” winner, or the finalists names on “America’s Got Talent.”  Otherwise, those with longer memories might reconsider the incongruities of this theatrical display by our acting President, a man who appears to care so deeply about the tragic, senseless deaths of children and adults while his Communist core is already salivating over the ways this tragedy can be — pardon the expression — ‘capitalized’ and exploited to push the last yet most essential element in his quest for his consolidation of power and control over America — complete civilian disarmament and the nullification of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States.

There are those who will read the words above and recoil in shock and horror as to my apparent callousness and cynicism.   They will remind you that Mr. Soetoro, aka, Obama, has two young school age daughters whom he clearly loves, and use this as proof that his grief is genuine.  To this I replay that this same Barack Obama is the man who voted to allow the killing of children who accidentally survived abortion outside the womb; who has allowed and expanded the remote drone strike killings of ‘suspected’ Al Qaeda terrorists throughout the Middle East, drone strikes which routinely kill 80% of non-intended victims who are then described as  “collateral damage” — a euphemism which a more civilized person might more accurately describe as women and children.  Yes, this is the same bronzed demigod who walked thru a corridor of Greek columns to accept the laurel wreath of victory during his first Democratic Party nomination –  only to silently collude in a treasonous conspiracy with his racist Attorney General, Eric Holder, to violate both international and constitutional law to allow thousands of “high powered assault rifles” to be ‘walked’ directly into Mexico, an act which produced hundreds of murders of Mexican men, women and children, and finally resulted in the killing of U.S. Citizen and border agent, Brian Terry, which is the only reason the American main stream media even bothered to report it.

Of course, many liberal/progressives will object and state that no linkage between The White House and this “rogue” gun walking operation out of Arizona was ever established.  True, the American Public was harassed and cajoled by the Establishment Press and The White House to view this ‘gun walking’ operation as something that was developed totally independent of the knowledge of Eric Holder or Barack Obama.  Yet think of the absurdity of low level bureaucrats of the ATF deciding, on their own, with no knowledge, communication or involvement of anyone higher than their local Phoenix office, instigating a program of ‘walking’ thousands of ‘high powered assault weapons’ over the Mexican border to known drug dealers and drug gangs, without the knowledge of either Washington or Mexico, in order to supposedly ‘track’ these weapons to see where they would end up — although they had no way to ‘track’ them once they left their straw purchasers, as they did not bother to imbed the rifles with any remote tracking devices!  What a truly amazing oversight!

Yes, it’s almost as if someone wanted to have all these weapons smuggled into Mexico so that all the killing they produced might be considered as proof to a supine American media that lax U.S. gun laws had resulted in the death of hundreds of Mexicans, and that something had to be done to stop such carnage.

For those of you who think this scenario is too cynical, consider that the mainstream media never even told you that similar operations were happening spontaneously out of other ATF offices in Texas and Florida and even Indiana!  Yes, you see, all of these ATF offices and the people in them had the same idea — at the very same time — without ever communicating among themselves or with their superiors in Washington, DC, to allow illegal straw purchases (felony) to be made multiple times by known felons (felony) and for their purchases to be given to known criminal drug gang members (felony) and have these weapons brought across international borders (felony and violation of international law) to be ‘tracked’ and ‘traced.‘   Their desire to ‘track and trace’ these weapons may have been thru psychic means, as all of these ATF field offices never bothered to insert any remote tracking devices into their firearms to allow this ‘tracking’, which was the alleged media inspired ‘reason’ for this operation, to occur.

Yet the biggest miraculous coincidence of them all is that neither President Obama nor his 2nd in command and head of The Justice Department, nor the head of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms knew a thing about it!  Which explains why, when the feces hit the fan, St. Obama invoked Executive Privilege…. because, of course, he knew nothing about it, and by invoking Executive Privilege, he made sure WE would learn nothing more about his non-involvement in this treasonous conspiracy with Mr. Holder.

I say all this just to illustrate the fact that the only lives that are meaningful to the people who currently run our government are the lives of people that they can use to push their agenda; and nothing is of more paramount importance than the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment and the disarming of the American Public so that the ‘progressive’ Utopian vision of a ‘Unitary’ Executive, a vision which appeals equally to ‘Neo-Cons’ as well, will be established.   Another word for this flowery title might more properly be termed ‘Dictator’, and both Neo-Cons and Progressives, being at their hearts twin heads of the same Socialist serpent, see an American Dictatorship as something for which they both yearn.

What makes the killings of innocent men, women and children at Sandy Hook, Connecticut even more reprehensible, is that their is already substantial evidence to point to a staged government spy-op!   That is, the official story of yet another ‘lone’ gunman going berserk may really have been another staged event to push naive, low-information Americans, led by a primed American media, to demand “gun control” as a panacea and a preventative so that such horrific violence would never happen again.

We are told by the lemming lame stream media that the lone gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, came to school with weapons and went on a shooting spree, killing 20 children, and 6 adults, including his mother, before killing himself.  No motivation is offered, other than he was a loner who had problems relating to people, despite the fact that he was quite intelligent.  No one event seemed to precipitate this outburst of violence.  Yet already there are major discrepancies in this very pat story which seems tailor made to push the Obama/Progressive disarmament gun-control agenda to fruition.

One major discrepancy is that the Medical Examiner has declared that every child and adult was shot with a .223 round at least 3 times, and some as many as eleven times.  Yet the .223 Bushmaster ‘assault’ rifle used to do the killing was not found near the alleged assailant’s body, but locked in the trunk of his car.  Two handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, were found near his body, but apparently these were not the firearms used to kill the children.   Police reported finding numerous casings of spent .223 ammunition, yet both handguns shoot 9mm shells.

A further anomaly is the simple math involved.  If every person murdered suffered at least 3 shots from the .223 Bushmaster, that would mean that at least 90 shots were fired (including the person shot 11 times).  However, the Glock pistol holds no more than 17 rounds; the Sig no more than 15.  Even the .223 Bushmaster holds no more than 20.  This sort of massive killing would then require multiple magazines of ammunition to be used, but none of these magazines have been found at the scene.  However, police did announce that a Henry repeating (lever action) rifle and a shotgun were also found.  Curious, isn’t it, that one person would be able to carry 3 long guns and two hand guns onto the crime scene with no apparent help from anyone else.

But perhaps there was someone else committing this crime.  Eye witnesses describe two men running into the woods at the time of the shooting, and YouTube video shows the police actually catching one of these men, who is wearing a dark jacket and camouflage pants!  Yet he protested his innocence (innocence of what?  How did he know anything had happened, and if he were innocent, then why did he run away from the police?)  There is also a YouTube audio of police calls (lasting 37 minutes) where this man is apprehended by the police and made to lay on the ground in a ‘prone position.’

Unfortunately, young Adam Lanza, the alleged lone gunman, supposedly shot and killed himself, so we will never be able to ask him why he supposedly did it.  Nor will we be able to ascertain that he was as much of a ‘patsy’ as Lee Harvey Oswald.  It will be interesting to see if Adam used one of the 9mm handguns found near his dead body.  Or whether he shot himself with the .223 Bushmaster rifle found in the trunk of his locked car….

Now the incredulous among us must become even more so, because there is also a strange ‘link’ with this shooting and the recent Aurora, Colorado theater massacre alleged to have been committed by one Jason Holmes.  Please consider the remote mathematical probabilities of these ‘co-incidences’ actually occurring.

It turns out that there is an interesting connection between the father of Adam Lanza, alleged shooter and killer at Sandy Hook Elementary school, and the father of James Holmes, the ‘Joker’ shooter in the Aurora, Colorado ‘Batman’ movie massacre.  Both of these fathers, Peter Lanza and Robert Holmes, were scheduled to testify before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss the LIBOR rate fixing scandal that has cost investors billions of extra dollars around the world.  Robert Holmes is the lead statistical scientist for FICO, which most of us know does our credit scores.  Peter Lanza is a Vice President and Tax Director of GE Financial.  Really, just what are the ‘odds’ that these two would have sons who would be involved as the perpetrators of mass murder within months of each other?

In fact, this strange relationship also brings to mind the recent case of the two children who were murdered in their New York City high rise condo by their ‘nanny’ of many years.  It turns out that father of the children and husband of the wife whose children were murdered, Kevin Krim, is the same Senior Vice President and television executive who decided to post the story of the $43 Trillion dollar law suit involving all the major figures of the Obama administration and the New York banking and finance community on the CNBC website, and then 3 hours later, after an anonymous phone call, had it hastily removed.  A day later, two of his children were dead.  Coincidence, especially when dealing with the corruption of the international banking elite, is a curious thing.  But I digress.

A common theme of mass shootings is that they happen where guns are banned (gun free zones) and no one is armed.  Think on this.  How many ‘mass murders’ can you recall ever happening at a police station?  Why do mass murderers always choose places where the odds are that no one will be armed?  Simple — because they want no resistance to their homicidal urges and even in their demented state realize that a person with a weapon willing to use it is sufficient to thwart their plans.

Now as to the discrepancies mentioned previously, it would be a simple matter just to examine the video recordings of external and internal cameras at the school to determine if there were truly more than one shooter.  However, I will hazard to guess that for some inexplicable reason, those cameras were not operational that day, or the recordings were somehow lost or destroyed.  It will just be another co-incidence.

The bottom line in this tragedy is that the progressive liberal agenda, headed by Barack Obama, will use this mass murder for further political fodder to try to ban all semi-automatic handguns and rifles; after that, their next goal will be to completely ban the civilian possession of firearms  of any type.  This feeding frenzy to further gut our Bill of Rights seems curiously tailor made for their agenda, for in their world, ‘gun violence’ can only be stopped by the elimination of guns.  Let us totally forget that it is not the gun that commits the crime (which is what the non-sequitur, ‘gun violence’, actually implies); it is the individual who uses that lethal tool in a criminal manner.  For if we, as a society, were truly interested in eliminating ‘things’ which cause children’s deaths, we would also eliminate swimming pools and bicycles, both of which cause more childrens’ deaths annually than firearms.  But don’t expect a federal/media campaign to outlaw either within your lifetime.

What truly leads to the use of violence and mass murder committed with a firearm?  Is it the ‘easy availability’ of these weapons to the general public?  Consider that semi-automatic handguns and rifles have been a part of American culture for over 100 years; it’s only been since the killing of Robert F. Kennedy in 1967 that ‘gun control’ took root in the psyche of the American ‘progressive’ Left.   It was even easier for teenagers to buy howitzers and bazookas as well as semi-automatic ‘assault’ rifles thru firearms dealers before 1967, yet where were the mass school murders and shootings before that time?  Essentially, mass school shootings were nearly non-existent.

So what has changed in our lives, our society and in our culture since the late 1970’s, when mass school shootings started to occur in our society?  While it is true that our media culture has become more violent, and violent video games have become extraordinarily popular, while single family parents are nearly the norm, where child abuse and teen-age pregnancies soar against a backdrop of over a million abortions a year, while all of these things are a factor in the psychic background of these murderers is true, the one almost universal commonality found in nearly 100% of all the mass school shooters is that the perpetrators were on prescription psychiatric, psychotropic drugs.

If you go back thru all the school shootings of the last 30 years, you will notice a constant litany of these shooters on ‘approved’ psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin, Luvox, Effexor, Valium, Prozac, and a whole host of anti-depressants and serotonin uptake inhibitors, which are known to produce violent mood swings, psychotic breaks, suicidal impulses and murderous rages.  Since Adam Lanza was described as nearly autistic and also suffering from Asperger’s syndrome, it is more than likely that he was being ‘medicated’ to deal with his mental ‘issues.’  Yet have we ever heard even one politician or media personality call for an end to this massive psycho-therapeutic assault on the mental health of our nation?  Even tho such prescription drugs can be found in use by nearly 100% of every school shooter since this phenomenon began?

This hypocrisy is even more incongruous when seen against the backdrop of our current societal fixation with drugs.  On the one hand, we have ‘zero tolerance’ for drugs, campaigns to ‘Just Say No’ to drugs, and countless television police reality shows which show the devastation of drugs; yet we think nothing of allowing psychiatrists, psychologists and others to prescribe drugs for our children, drugs which have a trailing history of death, suicides and murder, yet we allow their use in the hopes of modifying the behavior of a loved one in a positive direction.  This is the true insanity.

The mental illness, precipitated by psychiatrically prescribed psychotropic drugs IS the issue which Obama should have addressed and highlighted.   But the donations of Big Pharma to the coffers of both Democrat and Republican campaign machines will certainly preclude the media spotlight from ever being shone on this one indisputable commonality among nearly 100% of every school mass murder.  All we can look forward to is a constant barrage harping upon the evils of firearms in private hands, especially those deadly semi-automatic ‘assault’ weapons.  Almost as if on cue, media personalities sing in unison to ‘get serious’ about ‘gun control’ and always without addressing the underlying issue of the latent mental illness which is the fomenter of these atrocities, the driver which causes an unstable person to plan these murders and pull the trigger.

Yet while the media refuses, as usual, to investigate the story surrounding this event and prefers their normal prone posture of simply acting as a government conduit for ‘official’ news while relegating uncomfortable, non-conforming facts to the memory hole of obscurity and oblivion, the bottom line is that there also appears to be more than co-incidence at work here.

The idea that such murderous situations being conceived, scripted and carried out by a small, secret faction of our government may seem preposterous to many.  Yet there are simply too many ‘co-incidences’ and unanswered questions in both this particular atrocity, as well as many others in the past, which cries out for full investigation.   But whatever you do, please do not expect any member of the so-called ‘main stream media’ from following leads into uncomfortable areas or unchartered waters.  They had their grand opportunity to do that with a thorough investigation of the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, and did nothing more than regurgitate the repeated lies and obfuscations of the Obama Administration, rather than following the trail of leads back to their source in The Oval Office.  Now that The Anointed One has captured another second term, the media mouthpieces will be even less inclined to pursue The Truth, no matter where it may lead.

The problem, of course, is that it may lead directly back to the current puppet in the White House, and his puppet master, George Soros, also a perpetual proponent of ‘gun control’ and complete civilian disarmament.  After all, it will be so much easier to corral the great mass of Americans and herd them into FEMA camps when the economy totally collapses under the weight of massive derivatives fraud, stock and bond price manipulations, and endless TARP ‘stimulus’ programs, with the resultant hyper inflation of prices combined to coincide with the planned deflation of our currency.

What a heady brew!  And since most American’s will have been disarmed to ‘save the children’ they will no longer be able to save themselves from the intended consequences of this manufactured calamity.

copyright 2012, LCVincent, all rights reserved

January 4, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: