The Company Bloomberg Keeps Is More Concerning than Law Abiding Folks With Guns
Perhaps it’s a commentary on the insanity of his anti-gun push, or perhaps it’s a statement on the company he keeps… that is not for me to decide. However the caliber of person New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has opted to include in his Mayors Against Illegal Guns, leaves me once again questioning Mayor McNanny and his judgment.
For those not familiar, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a lobby group of mayors from around the country who seek to impose their will upon America in the nationwide battle for the Second Amendment.
The list of morally superior members includes the illustrious Gainesville, Fla., Mayor Craig Lowe, who just this past Thursday was arrested on charges of driving under the influence and property damage after police found him asleep in his car at the scene of a crash.
Then there is James Schiliro, the mayor of Marcus Hook, PA, who was actually removed from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns list of supporting mayors for his recent, um… indiscretions. As Breitbart.com reports:
38-year old Schiliro allegedly had a police officer “pick up a 20-year old” male and bring him to the Mayor’s home. Once there, Schiliro allegedly provided the under-age male with alcohol and asked for sexual favors.
When the 20-year old refused to cooperate, Schiliro allegedly lost his temper, grabbed a handgun, and fired “it into some papers.”
The charges filed against Schiliro include “unlawful restraint, reckless endangerment, false imprisonment, official oppression, and furnishing alcohol to a minor.”
Oh, but we’re just getting started.
According to an article in the Washington Free Beacon, aptly titled, “Mayors Gone Wild” the Bloomberg anti-gun group has been ripe with members, current and past, who have had more than their fair share of run-ins with the law including charges of felony corruption, assault of a police officer, and child sex crimes.
“Mayor Bloomberg should be more interested in the conduct of MAIG members than trying to pry into the personal lives of gun owners or soda drinkers,” said Second Amendment Foundation executive vice president Alan Gottlieb in a statement. “If anybody needs a background check, it would be a MAIG member.”
Indeed Mr. Gottlieb. Indeed.
Awesome and huge thanks to Angela Wiltz and the Tavern Keepers.
Mayors Gone Wild (freebeacon.com)
More embarrassment for Bloomberg’s anti-gun mayors group (canadafreepress.com)
M.A.I.G. Should Consider a Name Change, Maybe M.G.W. (brokenpatriot.net)
Americans Against Illegal Mayors: Demand A Plan (survivalblog.com)
Michael Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns Caught Lying to the Public (americanthinker.com)
Another Member Of ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ Arrested (youviewed.com)
Gold Confiscation by Roosevelt
This article in courtesy of Lemetrololecafe.com
In 1933, slavemason Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated the gold and silver of the American people thereby making them slaves of Pharaoh.
Gold Confiscation and a Case for Double Eagles
Recently Richard Butler, (former United Nations chief weapons inspector in Iraq) CNN’s Ambassador In Residence and expert on the Middle East, linked the funding of al Qaeda to secretive gold transactions in the Middle East. On February 17th Douglas Farah of the Washington Post wrote an article entitled “Al Qaeda’s Road Paved With Gold.” The “gold cartel” has rolled out the heavy artillery. It’s not a stretch to infer that the American people are starting to be “conditioned” to see gold as evil – a link to terrorism.
Last week Chris Powell, speaking for GATA at the Press Club Luncheon in Washington, said it was certainly possible that our Government might confiscate gold. His reasoning was that the Government would need all the gold it could get its hands on to keep the bullion banks afloat, when the price of gold explodes.
For the last 20 years, I have found the subject of gold confiscation intriguing. I have thought about it, written about it, talked about it and researched it. I am concerned, as the owner of a precious metals firm who has survived a two decade-long bear market in the precious metals industry, that as the price of gold is finally starting to take off, the Government may well decide to intervene, and confiscate our “real money” – gold, the metal of Kings.
Does this sound a bit extreme? Well, consider that ownership of gold in the United States is a privilege, not a right. Yes, the law is still “on the books” granting the government the right to recall privately owned gold. Let’s take a look at the background.
It was in April, 1933 and in his first “official” act in office; President Roosevelt declared a banking “holiday” and issued the order to confiscate gold:
Executive order: By virtue of the
authority vested in me by Section 5(B) of
The Act of Oct. 6,
1917, as amended by section 2 of
the Act of March 9, 1933, in which
Congress declared that
a serious emergency exists, I as
President, do declare that the national
emergency still exists;
That the continued private hoarding
of gold and silver by subjects of the United
States poses a
grave threat to the peace, equal
justice, and well-being of the United
States; and that appropriate
measures must be taken immediately
to protect the interests of our people.
“Therefore, pursuant to the above
authority, I herby proclaim that such gold
and silver holdings
are prohibited, and that all such
coin, bullion or other possessions of gold
and silver be tendered within fourteen days
to agents of the Government of the United
States for compensation at the
official price, in the legal tender of
the Government. All safe deposit boxes in
banks or financial
institutions have been sealed,
pending action in the due course of the
law. All sales or purchases
or movements of such gold and
silver within the borders of the United
States and its territories,
and all foreign exchange
transactions or movements of such metals
across the border are herby prohibited.
“Your possession of these
proscribed metals and/or your maintenance
of a safe-deposit box to
store them is known to the
Government from bank and insurance
records. Therefore, be advised
that your vault box must remain
sealed, and may only be opened in the
presence of an agent of
The Internal Revenue Service.
“By lawful Order given this day,
the President of the United States.”
In this act of theft, the citizens of the United States of America were compensated at the “official” price of $20.67 an ounce. That was the “official” price of gold for 97 years. Following the confiscation, the dollar was devalued by 40% – and the price of gold was revalued upwards to $35 an ounce.
Under the authority of the Emergency Banking Relief Act, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6102 which allowed the Government to confiscate all privately owned gold in the United States. The owners would be repaid in paper dollars whether they like it or not.
Dentists, jewelers and coin collectors were exempt from this Executive Order, and were allowed to own gold. (In terms of coins, the actual terminology used was “gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.”)
In the mid-eighties, Representative Ron Paul (still fighting the gold battle for us, God bless him) served on the Gold Commission in the House of Representatives. Paul wrote: “If it gets bad enough, they’ll declare a national economic emergency. They’ll take over the banks, all business and industry. They may even try to confiscate our gold. I served on the Gold Commission for eight or nine months while I was in Congress along with fifteen other members. I brought up the subject of confiscation. The power to confiscate gold is still on the books as the law of the land. I urged the full Commission to recommend Congress repeal the power to confiscate gold in an economic emergency. We pushed it to a vote and I was the only one that voted to recommend to Congress that we never again contemplate taking the gold of the American people. The fifteen other members voted it down. The power is still there on the books, and they can do it any time they wish.”
Unfortunately, our current Administration has turned a deaf ear to the gold manipulation problems uncovered by GATA and Bill Murphy. The Treasury and the Fed still have a free rein to do whatever necessary to hold back the price of gold. No doubt, those advising President Bush believe it is a matter of National Security to continue this outrageous practice. I really do believe that there is a high probability that the Bush Administration will eventually resort to confiscation. They have the legal justification to do it, and it would allow them to continue their active suppression of the price of gold.
The (large amount of) confiscated gold would give the Government a much needed new source of supply they could use to provide to the bullion banks, to help them off-the-hook. This would help them repay their gold “loans” to their friends at the central banks. Or the Government may use it to “re-stock” Fort Knox (assuming our gold reserves have been sold out from beneath us).
In the late 1980s Dr. Franz Pick (a highly respected economist and currency expert) wrote a well received book The Triumph of Gold. Pick wrote: “I am afraid that one day the government will indeed call gold in. Gold bullion will be subject to confiscation. This is the one big advantage of numismatic gold, such as Double Eagles. It’s an idiosyncrasy of governments that although they may prohibit ownership of gold in any form, they are reluctant to touch collections of numismatic gold coins.”
“Today there are some 49 countries which forbid ownership of gold by their citizens, but do allow holding gold coins for numismatic purposes. Even the Soviet Union and Eastern countries legally tolerate the acquisition of numismatic gold coins. For these are the only gold holdings that could be kept in your safe deposit box without any fear of confiscation.”
During WWI Congress passed The 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act. This act is still in place. Its article 5(b) states: “That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange for the export, hoarding melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coins or bullion or currency.”
There you have it. With this awesome power, the President of the United States may do what he pleases with our money or with gold if he deems our monetary system to be in jeopardy. If you’ve been following the articles in LeMetropolecafe it is very obvious that our financial system is in grave danger, and a rising gold price is all it will take to create the crisis.
Roosevelt used section 5(b) in 1933 to confiscate gold. President Carter used it to freeze Iranian assets during the hostage crisis. Will President Bush also use it when we take our money out of the banks (like they are starting to do now in Japan) and rush to buy gold or wire money off shore? Do not bet against it!
Historically, governments have banned the ownership of gold when their citizens lose confidence in government issued paper money. Why will it be different here this time? It has already happened before. All that is required (because of the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917) is for President Bush to issue a decree.
1933, 1934, 1954, 1984 and tomorrow: Roosevelt justified his executive authority because of the national emergency. He empowered the Treasury to maintain complete control over all transactions in gold, silver and foreign exchange. His executive order demanded COMPLETE SURRENDER OF GOLD COINS, GOLD BULLION AND GOLD CERTIFICATES still in the possession of individuals. The owners had 25 days to turn their gold into a Federal Reserve Bank. FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $10,000 OR 10 YEARS IN PRISON OR BOTH.
Silver also suffered the fate of gold. On August 9, 1934 a Presidential Proclamation ordered all silver bullion surrendered to the Treasury within 90 days and a 50 percent tax was levied on any profits from the sale of silver. The sellers were paid 50.1 cents per ounce.
In 1984 the IRS proposed new legislation that distinguished between bullion and numismatic gold and silver. This could be used in the future as a standard to define what is exempt from confiscation. They said that gold or silver coins or bars must be worth at least 15% more than their metal value on sell back to qualify as a collectable rather than as bullion. Why would they possibly make such a distinction unless they planned, at some future date, to recall the bullion?
Our best defense against confiscation is The Eminent Domain Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The clause states, in part ….”nor shall private property be taken by the government for public use, without just compensation.” In 1933 the Government paid the “official” price of $20.67 for an ounce of gold. Why did Roosevelt exempt gold coins “having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins?” His Executive Order did, after all, call for the confiscation of “all gold coin.” What is a “just” price for a “numismatic” gold coin? It would have been a monumental task to administrate the grading and pricing of each individual gold coin. Note the wording here – exempted from the surrender requirement were not the “owners” of rare gold coins, nor the “holders” of them, nor persons who “possessed” them, nor even “investors.” On the contrary, the order specifically focused on an individual’s motives for having rare gold coins, exempting just one classification: “Collectors.”
A clear distinction was made between the “collector” and the “investor”. A collector’s primary interest in rare coins is enjoyment for historical, aesthetic or cultural reasons. An investor’s interest in rare coins is financial, to make a profit. Roosevelt clearly intended to exclude only the collector. As a result of FDR’s decree, most of the gold was now in the hands of the Government, which increased their holding from $4 billion to $7 billion and foisted “paper money” on the citizens in return.
This was a sad day for freedom in America. What ever happened to the laws laid down by our founding fathers? As they stated in the Constitution of The United States of America, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and 10: “The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.. no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts.
Finally, a brief history of the performance of Double Eagles vs. bullion gold since 1980.
Each Double Eagle contains just under an ounce of pure gold. Using the industry standard, the CDN Monthly Supplement, the Greysheet bid prices we find that the common date Double Eagles (the cheapest and most common dates) in circulated condition (xf/au) peaked at $800 each in March, 1984. The lowest price for these coins was $300 in September, 2001. At any point in between, they always were bid above their gold value. In uncirculated MS/60 (lowest grade of uncirculated) the prices were $885 and $310 and in MS/63 (higher grade uncirculated) they were bid at $1250 and $365. As you can see, the value of these coins can be as much as hundreds of dollars above their gold value or as little as 10% above their gold value.
As the price of gold rises, the premium increases dramatically on the Double Eagles as they are scooped up off the market. Supply/demand – when in demand these coins are wonderful performing investments. If the good folks at LeMetropolecafe are right and gold hits $600 an ounce, depending on the grade of coin, the double eagles should command a wholesale price well north of $1,000 each. At today’s prices, which are just off the bottom – the lowest on record, with gold starting to make its move, the time is perfect for accumulation of this kind of gold coin. The reason I recommend the Double Eagle coin is because it is the cheapest way to own the most gold in a numismatic coin. These are bullion substitutes with a difference. The difference being if you accumulate a variety of them in different dates and mint marks and “become a collector” the laws governing confiscation that are now on the books will allow you to keep them. This insulates you as best as one possibly can from Government recalls. This is a BIG advantage to you. Beyond profit! And should these coins also be “recalled” at least you will realize a premium above that allowed for you bullion coins. At today’s prices there is virtually no risk, just benefit in the ownership of Double Eagle gold coins.
If you would like to discuss this topic with us or if you wish to receive our reports on gold and the economy please drop us a line at firstname.lastname@example.org or call us at 1 (800) 822-8080.
Miles Franklin, Ltd. (A family owned gold, silver and numismatic coin dealer since 1991)
March 26, 2013
RUSH: Here’s Art in Windsor, Connecticut, as we go back to the phones. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: I’m fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Look, I just think, you know, there used to be laws that said black people can’t marry white people. I don’t think this is any different. I mean, if you’re gay and you want to marry somebody who’s gay, marry somebody who’s gay. That’s your business. What is the business of the state government or the federal government telling me who I can and can’t marry?
RUSH: You are serious with this? You want to equate interracial marriage to homosexual marriage?
CALLER: Yeah, I think that a person should be able to make their own personal decision. I think actually this should be something the Republican Party should be in support of. It’s individual rights, you can marry whoever you want.
RUSH: You don’t have to worry, the Republican Party’s moving in that direction, it is.
RUSH: Well, let me ask you this. Where does this freedom to do what you want stuff stop? And what, in your case, what would two people wanting to do raise a red flag for you? What would you say, “Now, wait a minute, no, no, no, you shouldn’t do that?”
CALLER: Well, I think if you were talking about like a three-party marriage, an eight-party marriage —
RUSH: Why? If you love one, you can love two. What if all three people love each other and they want the benefits and all that, who among us should deny those three people their love?
CALLER: I think they can be loved, I just don’t think you need to give it a legal status because —
RUSH: Why not?
CALLER: Because two people would make a family, they could raise kids, adopt kids, do whatever they want, I don’t think —
RUSH: Wait a minute. But why can’t three people do that? In fact, if you have two of the same sex and one of the opposite sex, you’ve handled the adoption issue. You don’t need to adopt. You can have one woman and two guys in a marriage, and the woman could be impregnated by the two, and, voila, you got a family.
CALLER: I don’t see that.
RUSH: You got a lot of love and what could possibly be wrong with that?
CALLER: I think society’s determined that two spouses, two people —
RUSH: Well, wait, society’s determined, you know, by the way, human civilization, from the beginning of time, has determined that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. The Republicans didn’t do it.
RUSH: Conservatives didn’t do it.
RUSH: Churchill didn’t do it. Margaret Thatcher didn’t do it. Gorbachev didn’t do. It was humanity which did it. You just said society has determined that — well, society has determined that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don’t think society’s right in that case.
CALLER: No, no. I don’t agree with you. I think society has evolved away from that. I think the people in general think that you want if you want to marry somebody you should be able to marry them.
RUSH: Well, someday society is gonna evolve away from marriage by two people and could be three or four, and you’re gonna oppose that then for some reason. You’re gonna deny those people their love.
CALLER: Yeah, I would. I would oppose that.
RUSH: Why? I don’t understand. Why would you discriminate that way? What does the number matter when we’re talking about love here?
MY TWO SENSE
Nor do I understand the reasoning here, of the caller. The caller said that our society had evolved away from one man and one woman definition of marriage, toward including same-sex marriage, and that it was not the business of society to say otherwise. If that’s the case, then what will keep society from branching out even further to include one car and one man marriage or one horse and one woman marriages? (I swear that I kid you not when I say I have knowledge of a man who is in love, and sexually involved with his car! If marriage is based upon love, and we are evolving toward acceptance of the atypical, then we must allow these things.)
The real issue is that evolution is not always a good thing, and it doesn’t always strengthen a species. Sometimes evolution takes civilization into a degenerative state of devolvment. Absolutely nothing will stop the human event from sinking into debauchery, depravity, and every other ID-centered, behavior without moral restraints guiding it. My perspective on same-sex marriage is a traditional one and not for the apparent reason. I hold no moral objections against homosexuality because I firmly believe that sexual orientation is stamped on man’s DNA even before birth. In the most candid of explanations, I believe that the homosexuality gene is either an anomaly or a natural result of the evolution of man and pertains to his survival. Because like-gender, homosexuals are not capable of reproducing between themselves, I understand this as a natural occurrence in evolution–a form of genetically driven population control.
For eons the word “marriage,” has been defined and understood to mean a moral, civil, and legal covenant between one man and one woman, following a ceremony performed by a qualified individual. If the goal of the gay and lesbian communities was to legitimize and legally protect his/her life-partner in the same ways marriage laws protect spouses, then this could very easily be done with the invention of a new term, with a specific definition and meaning, such as “life-partner union” or “single-gender union.” The label doesn’t matter when the agenda honorable. But equal under the law was never the actual goal of these people, and by “these people,” I mean the money group behind the push for this new kind of “marriage.” The real motive was to decimate yet another layer of societal values and mores.
Much of the gay and lesbian population did not want to be a part of this movement and would have been satisfied with laws that guarantee the same legal protections that marriage provides for a spouse. The Progressive movement never publicly displays its true agendas. For example, on the surface, the word “progressive” seems benign in both meaning and application. If it weren’t for progress, we never would have moved beyond the Inquisition. However, this movement operates covertly, and what is said is not what is meant–black is white–up is down–Orwellian across the board.
Progressives always advance and continually increase their control over the lives and liberties of mankind for the good of the élite rulers atop a New World Order. Regardless of their claims that they work for the good of the whole, it’s really all about them. Progressives despise the average person, view themselves as far beyond the intelligence of the citizenry, and want to significantly diminish our numbers. The ultimate agenda is to completely dismantle ways of life across the planet, hence, the United Nations Agenda 21 and the United Nations Arms Treaty, the two most vile, corrupt, and terrifying carrots ever tied to a stick. Yet, there are Stalin’s “useful idiots” who chase after those carrots certain that the former will bring us Hilton’s “Shangri-La” and the latter a world without violence. Go figure!
Internet Hit by ‘Biggest Attack Ever’
Posted on March 27, 2013
You can be sure that upcoming wars will be fought in cyberspace. And of course Obama will want to take it over to help protect everyone….
Check it out: A squabble between a group fighting spam and a Dutch company that hosts Web sites said to be sending spam has escalated into one of the largest computer attacks on the Internet, causing widespread congestion and jamming crucial infrastructure around the world.
Millions of ordinary Internet users have experienced delays in services like Netflix or could not reach a particular Web site for a short time.
However, for the Internet engineers who run the global network the problem is more worrisome. The attacks are becoming increasingly powerful, and computer security experts worry that if they continue to escalate people may not be able to reach basic Internet services, like e-mail and online banking.
Daily Report: Dispute on Spam Stirs Big Assault on the Internet (bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
Site *ADMINS* posted discussions (12160.info)
Silent Circle and inexperienced protocol parsing (erratasec.blogspot.com)
Spam Dispute Becomes ‘Largest Cyber Attack’ in History of the Internet (goldenageofgaia.com)
McCain: I Won’t Stop Saying ‘Illegal’ Immigrant
Posted on March 27, 2013
Wow. McCain got one right. I guess he’s about 50-50. Does this mean that Obama will start calling illegal drug dealers by the name of “Undocumented Pharmacists”
Check it out: Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., said Monday he won’t stop using the term “illegal immigrant,” when asked at a Phoenix town hall to stop using “the ‘I’ word.”
A 25-year old “dreamer” asked McCain to instead use a phrase like “undocumented immigrant,” the Arizona Republic reported today.
“Someone who crosses our borders illegally is here illegally,” McCain said. “You can call it whatever you want to, but it’s illegal. I think there’s a big difference between someone who does something that’s illegal and someone who’s undocumented. I’ll continue to call it illegal.”
The White House, on the other hand, has adopted the term “undocumented” in its push for immigration reform.
Shatner ‘appalled’ by IRS ‘Trek’ spoof
Posted on March 27, 2013
The real question should be who thought this was a good idea.
Check it out: William Shatner said he is “appalled” by the Internal Revenue Services’s spoof of “Star Trek” — the television show that made him famous for his portrayal of Captain James Kirk.
Last week, the IRS apologized for spending $60,000 on the parody, which was intended to be used as a training video. Lawmakers — and now the show’s star actor — have blasted it as a senseless use of taxpayer money.
“So I watched that IRS video. I am appalled at the utter waste of U.S. tax dollars,” Shatner tweeted Tuesday Morning.
The six-minute “Star Trek” video made in Maryland was shown to agency employees at a conference in 2010. In the video, IRS workers are meticulously dressed as characters from the popular TV show and are flying a staged space craft towards the planet “Notax.”
Bob Beckel Goes Off on CBS For Communist Propaganda During Show
Cyprus Has Been Bailed Out: Here’s What You Need to Know
Mar. 25, 2013 7:43am Jonathon M. Seidl
BRUSSELS (TheBlaze/AP) — Authorities from Cyprus and the so-called troika of international lenders – the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – reached agreement on a bailout loan for the country of up to 10 billion euros. A look at key parts of the deal:
-The agreement doesn’t need to be voted on by the Cyprus parliament, explains Business Insider.
-Cyprus had to come up with 5.8 billion euros somehow to secure the bailout.
-Depositors in the country’s second-largest bank, Laiki, with accounts of more than 100,000 euros will lose an unspecified amount of their money. The move is expected to yield 4.2 billion euros overall – or most of the needed amount.
-Reuters describes it as a “raid” on those above-100k euro accounts:
Deposits above 100,000 euros in both banks, which are not guaranteed under EU law, will be frozen and used to resolve Laiki’s debts and recapitalize Bank of Cyprus through a deposit/equity conversion.
The raid on uninsured Laiki depositors is expected to raise 4.2 billion euros, Eurogroup chairman Jeroen Dijssebloem said.
-This is what depositors with more than 100k euros reportedly saw when they logged in to the UK version of the Laiki bank website (from Twitter user Tukxi Piaggio Ape):
(Twitter user Tukxi Piaggio Ape)
-The remainder of the money will come from tax increases and privatizations.
-Cyprus had to agree to restructure its banking sector, which is unusually large for the size of its economy.
Retired Army Officer: DHS Must Surrender Their War Weapons to Dept. of Defense
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, March 24, 2013, 10:51 AM
Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired (Examiner)
On Saturday March 23, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired Army officer with nearly 30 years of service under his belt, posted this letter he sent to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) this week. Hestilow wants DHS to hand over their war weapons to the Department of Defense.
The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America
Dear Senator Cornyn,
It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.
Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
The Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.
This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.
The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!
Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.
I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.
We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!
Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013
Will Obama Seize Americans’ Savings?
March 22, 2013 by Kris Zane
Yesterday, they floated the idea of nationalizing—that is, confiscating—pensions.
Today, the European Union is pushing to “freeze”—that is confiscate— bank accounts of the “bad” banks—forget about six and ten percent; they’re talking about forty percent!
They use terms like “tax,” “freeze,” or “nationalize”; but the operative word here is “confiscation.”
Obama would call it “paying their fair share.”
Although “theft” would be the word most would use.
The whole fiasco matters little as far as Cyprus is concerned. We’re talking about the EU wanting to “freeze” $13 billion. America spends that much funding Obama’s endless golf outings.
But when Americans heard that the European Union could force a sovereign nation to confiscate private citizens’ bank accounts, there was a collective gasp. Our economy is intimately tied with the European Union; and in fact, Americans have largely funded the endless bailouts through our having to pony up funds for the IMF. So when it was heard that the EU could confiscate private citizens’ bank accounts or pensions, we knew they could do it to virtually any country in the EU—and in fact, many now are talking about a “tax” of 15% on Italians’ savings. What country is next? Germany? The UK?
What about the United States?
Not at all. Obama and his gaggle of leftists were actually floating the idea of nationalizing 401Ks and IRAs in 2010—and only were stopped in their tracks when they lost the House in the 2010 midterms.
Under the auspices of a “bailout” for Big Labor’s bankrupt pensions—the same Big Labor that has donated half a billion dollars to Obama’s endless campaign—Democrats were planning on confiscating Americans’ retirement accounts and funneling the money to their Big Labor backers. The cover was the creation of what they called a Guaranteed Retirement Account—GRA—another government takeover that dwarves ObamaCare’s takeover of the healthcare industry.
Is this something a radicalized Obama administration floated, then rejected, in 2010?
Not at all. Obama’s just doing it, as always, via a Trojan Horse. Called “Automatic IRAs,” Obama’s budget proposals for 2013 include a preliminary government takeover of Americans’ retirement accounts by mandating employers contribute a certain amount to their employees’ retirement.
Of course, this employer mandate sounds oddly similar to ObamaCare’s mandate to buy health insurance, which is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for single-payer—that is, socialized healthcare.
And the “Automatic IRA” will be a Trojan Horse for nationalizing retirement accounts.
But this is only the beginning. Barack Obama and his gaggle of leftists are out for the motherlode: full-blown socialism.
Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is waiting for the European Union to collapse; waiting for the U.S. stock market to crash; and, like a vulture waiting for his prey to die, waiting for the U.S. economy itself to collapse.
Enter George Soros, dubbed “The Man Who Broke the Bank of England,” who funneled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the British economy with the collapse of the British pound and is now about to gut the European Union with the impending collapse of the Euro.
And now he’s out for blood when the U.S. stock market collapses.
The stock market in recent weeks has been at record levels. Many have predicted a stock market crash—losing up to 90% of its value—although those on the hard Left, especially our friend George Soros, won’t say it openly.
Soros, along with a gaggle of other banksters, have dumped most of their stock in the banking industry and are stockpiling a massive amount of gold.
And Obama and Soros have a secret that they’re keeping wraps on: If the stock market crashes, the economy itself will collapse.
Presto Chango!—or in Obama speak, “Change you can believe in!”
When the stock market and economy collapse, Obama—with Soros no doubt at the helm—will call for “nationalizing” Americans’ retirement accounts—“coincidentally” estimated to be close to the amount of the current national debt—$18 trillion—in order to, in Obama’s words, “Get our fiscal house in order.”
And if retirement accounts are “nationalized”—that is, stolen—why not nationalize everything—that is, why not have full blown Marxism?
Why not, indeed?
Of course, the American people won’t go willingly. Those who “cling to their guns and religion” will fight Barack Obama tooth and nail.
Is this why the Obama administration has been on the war path trying to gut the Second Amendment?
Is this why the Obama administration has stockpiled two billion rounds of ammunition?
Is this why the Obama administration has been stockpiling light armored tanks, preparing for a literal civil war on the streets of America?
A civil war in America?
When the manufactured “economic crisis” is over, Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America will be complete, with a Marxist utopia safely in place.
Is this all a wild conspiracy theory?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
- Will Obama Seize Americans’ Savings? (cryandhowl.com)
- Will Obama Seize Americans’ Savings?…”…Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is waiting for the European Union to collapse; waiting for the U.S. stock market to crash; and, like a vulture waiting for his prey to die, waiting for the U.S. economy (newtgingrichforpresident2012.wordpress.com)
- Cyprus Could Be The New Paul Revere (economicnoise.com)
- Unions and Congress choke on ObamaCare (humanevents.com)
- CONFISCATION: Panicked Europeans Rush ATMs as Leaders Move To Seize Funds Directly From Bank Account Holders (shtfplan.com)
- CONFISCATION: Panicked Europeans Rush ATMs as Leaders Move To Seize Funds Directly From Bank Account Holders (thedailysheeple.com)
- CONFISCATION: Panicked Europeans Rush ATMs as Leaders Move To Seize Funds Directly From Bank Account Holders (wealthwire.com)
The Devil Is In The Details
This is for everyone who believes mental illness leads to killing, with or without a gun, and Glenn Beck needs to hear this, as well as everyone else. Thinking one knows what the parameters ought to be to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, is not only misunderstanding mental illness, but it does a grave injustice for the vast majority of individuals with a mental health issue. This is extremely dangerous territory, and lay people should not be making decisions about gun control. That, in itself, is heavily infringing upon the Second Amendment of all Americans.
There are myriad issues that can, and are labeled, “mental illness,” by a professional. Depression, anxiety, PTSD, as well as every other non-violence, oriented disorder is rampant in this world. Only one general rule should be applied when denying ownership of a gun in connection with mental illness. That is ACTIVE PARANOIA and/or PSYCHOSIS! That means those who cannot tell the difference between reality and fiction should not have weapons OF ANY KIND! Guns are not the only murder weapons available to one bent on killing.
We must not allow fear and ignorance to lead us down the wrong and dangerous path relative to gun control. A precursor to violence is NOT a mental health diagnosis, nor is taking a medication related to mental illnesses. In fact, most clinically diagnosed individuals would no more consider hurting another than they would consider the sky to be falling. Let’s not forget that evil stems from three personality characteristics; amorality, a lack of empathy, and extreme narcissism can, and does, set the stage for violent behaviors. In-the-moment, extreme rage, along with a break from reality, can be another possible predictor. There are many, many grey here. Stop, take a breath, and educate yourselves about mental illness and keep the ignorance and fear out of this debate!
- We need to talk about Mental Illness (jansandsblog.wordpress.com)
- LETTER: Gun debate must not scapegoat mental illness (tauntongazette.com)
- Attitudes Towards Mental Illness Suffer Following Media Coverage Of Mass Shootings (medicalnewstoday.com)
- Mental Illness and Guns (conservativeread.com)
- Virginia Slayer Statute Includes Persons With Mental Illness (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- Mental Illness Stigma or Should We Say Ignorance? (bipolar2happiness.com)
- State lawmakers debates relaxing gun laws for mentally ill (onlineathens.com)
- Prison Or Treatment For the Mentally ill (psychologytoday.com)
WND by GARTH KANT (MY TWO SENSE: Does everyone remember when this information came out? The man in charge of buying weapons and bullets, at the Department of Homeland Security, is preparing for a race war. His agenda? To slaughter as many white people, around the world, as can be slaughtered. No comment has come from Obama, and his talking head, J. Earnest, claims the White House has no knowledge of the bullet-buyer or his website named, War is On the Horizon aka WOH. Happily, that blog is shut down, or so it seems, but it was only taken down after a much longer time than it took Obama to claim Trayvon Martin could have been his son! Most of us didn’t know about this person, or his agenda, but now that we do, what will this Administration do about his call for rioting and waring? Wasn’t the film maker of Innocence of Muslims accused and arrested relative to bogus evidence made up by this Administration? JM)
Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup
Lawmaker: ‘They refuse to let us know what is going on’
Published: 18 hours ago
by Garth Kant Email | Archive
Garth Kant is a WND staff writer. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”More ↓
Members of Congress are demanding the Obama administration explain why it is stockpiling a huge arsenal of ammunition and weapons.
The Department of Homeland Security bought more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year, as well as thousands of armored vehicles.
Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, R-Kan., wants to know what DHS plans to do with all that firepower, but he can’t get an answer.
A reporter for We Are Change asked Huelscamp at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week why DHS needs weapons of war.
“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.
“I’ve got a list of questions of various agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed-nature, opaque and they refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t have an answer for that. And multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.
Huelscamp said he plans to apply pressure to get an answer: “It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire? We’re going to find out. I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer.”
Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., also wants answers, and WND has reported that he is demanding an explanation of DHS’s bullet buys from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
“I think Congress should ask the department about both of those issues, and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done, and I have every confidence that the oversight committee … should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”
As WND reported, the Department of Homeland Security has argued that it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.
But the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would be enough for more than 100 years of training, or, more ominously, enough to fight a war for more than 20 years. It would also be enough to shoot every American more than five times.
Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.
“To claim that it’s to ‘get a low price’ for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she believes the federal government is building an arsenal to prepare for the day the country goes bankrupt. Last month, she wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an ominous remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July 2008.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said then-candidate Obama.
Even the far-left is worried by the feds’ growing power.
WND reported four days ago that Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, a left-wing “peace and social justice movement” known for its colorful marches and protests, told WABC host Aaron Klein the potential for the Obama administration to abuse its growing domestic police power is “extremely troubling.”
Klein asked Benjamin, author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control,” if she was concerned that military-style drones now authorized to fly over U.S. skies could be used against American citizens, the same question that prompted U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to filibuster in the Senate earlier this month.
“Very much so,” Benjamin replied. “We see a militarization of the U.S. police forces here in the United States, and it’s a very troubling tendency.”
Furthermore, Benjamin charged she was “upset” that liberal Democrats – who might question and fight the federal government’s growing police powers under a Republican administration – “have been very quiet when this is happening under Obama.”
Klein asked if concerns that federal agencies are buying for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year meant America is heading toward some sort of military-style control.
“I think the potential is there,” Benjamin replied, “and the fact that 10 years after 9/11 the U.S. is still keeping the American people in the state of fear about terrorism and using that to take billions and billions of our tax dollars to use to set up these kind of facilities and equip our local law-enforcement agencies with military equipment and potentially really be turning us into a society where Big Brother is watching us all the time, I think is extremely troubling.”
The astronomical growth in federal firepower comes at a time when Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to reduce the availability of guns for American citizens, following the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
A law went into effect in the state of New York on Jan. 15 banning so-called assault weapons and limiting ammunition magazines to seven rounds.
Just yesterday, Colorado’s governor signed into law a measure expanding requirements for background checks and another putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.
Gun-rights supporters are fighting back in both states.
The National Rifle Association announced today that it has joined the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in a lawsuit challenging the New York law.
Sheriffs in Colorado are considering filing suit against that state’s new anti-gun laws.
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” the new laws, because it would be impossible to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.
He says the laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”
As WND reported, similar sentiments have been expressed by Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and sheriffs in Missouri, California, Kansas, Montana and in dozens of counties in several states across the country.
Weld has joined the list of at least 340 sheriffs who have vowed to uphold the Constitution against gun-control measures that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
The sheriffs’ push-back against the gun measures is significant because, “The bills are a model for what they’ll try to push in Congress,” said Independence Institute research director and Denver University law professor Dave Kopel.
“Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” he added.
That plan is moving forward in Congress, although not even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get Democrats to go along with banning “assault weapons.”
Earlier this week, Reid told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that her measure to ban those weapons would not be part of a sweeping bill restricting gun rights. She said Reid decided the ban had little chance of surviving a vote in the Senate.
Feinstein said she will be able to offer the ban as an amendment instead. But AP suggested that by pushing it back to that level, Senate leaders believe it will have a hard time passing.
Feinstein sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Her current proposal would have banned 157 different types of weapons and ammunition magazines.
All of these gun-control measures have some concerned about outright confiscation of guns.
WND reported three weeks ago that the City Council in Guntersville, Ala. proposed to give police officers the authority to “disarm individuals, if necessary,” during an emergency or crisis. The council quickly backed down after an outcry when the story hit the Internet.
Such blatant grabs for guns are not new in the U.S. Less than a year ago, the Second Amendment Foundation fought a court battle over a North Carolina regulation that banned firearms and ammunition outside the home during any declared emergency, and won.
A provision in a Washington-state gun-control bill that failed in the state House last week was so draconian that even its sponsors backtracked or denied any knowledge of it when they were confronted about it.
As Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat reported, the “Orwellian” measure would allow the county sheriff to inspect the homes of owners of so-called “assault weapons” to ensure the weapons were stored properly.
In the post-Newtown debate, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke speaks for many of the nation’s sheriffs in saying such firearms seizure plans are flat-out unconstitutional and they won’t enforce them.
Authorities confiscated firearms in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Thousands of weapons – legally obtained and owned – were simply grabbed from citizens after New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”
In a series of videos, the NRA has documented the stunning weapons grab by police in New Orleans, assembling videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.
The not-to-be-forgotten images, Part 1:
The police actions – many of the victims describe the gun confiscation as out-and-out theft – left New Orleans’ residents, who had been prepared to stand their ground and defend themselves from thugs and looters running amok, completely defenseless.
WND reported this week a new poll indicated only one in five gun owners would be willing to give up their firearms if the government demanded it.
“In other words, the government has a huge fight on its hands if it tries to implement a gun confiscation program,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.
Nearly half of the nation’s households have at least one gun, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 115 million households. Since President Obama took office in 2009, more than 65 million background checks have been conducted on gun purchases.
The push to limit the gun-rights of citizens comes as the federal government seeks to expand both its firepower and its reach. WND has reported on growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.
In 1997, WND exposed the fact that 60,000 federal agents were enforcing more than 3,000 criminal laws. The report prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark: “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
Also in 1997, as part of an ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of paperwork.
WND further reported a plan by then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen in dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
In 1999, Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the Founding Fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
Also in 1999, WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
In 2000, WND CEO Joseph Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
CONSERVATIVE BYTE (We are in a world of hurt. I actually lost my breakfast over this picture. God only knows–no, we all know, that the Bobamas think of themselves as royalty. That reminds me–I once knew a man, deaf in one ear, who used expressions, but in a malaprop sort of way. Rather than saying “I f**ked up royally,” he would say, “I f**ked up royalty!” I always responded to him with, “Do they know about that?” If my friend originally heard the expression from his left, he, more often than not, replaced an actual word with one that rhymed. He was always using the wrong, but rhyming word. Anyhow, the Brits seem to want these gueens to reign forever. Explains a lot about Peirce Morgan, n’est-ce pas?
Michelle Obama Crowned
All Hail the Queen? First lady Michelle Obama is made to look like a monarch in a new ad for Britain’s Sunday Times Style Magazine.
After naming Obama the Best Dressed Woman in the World, the magazine had this ad made to promote the issue.
She was then “immortalised” on her very own British first class postage stamp design — a space traditionally reserved only for the Queen.
FROM JOSEPH FARAH’S G2 BULLETIN
See which power is building its military
Expansion, not repair, now has become the goal
Published: 20 hours ago
Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.
WASHINGTON – Russian President Vladimir Putin no longer wants just to reform the Russian military. He wants boost its capabilities, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
This new perspective is due to the uncertainties arising from the Arab Spring and the military’s experiences in the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia.
Gerasimov believes that the distinction between war and peace have blurred, given recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. The Arab Spring has brought about foreign intervention, chaos, humanitarian disasters and civil war, Gerasimov has pointed out.
In a recent speech, Gerasimov said that experiences stemming from the Arab Spring don’t constitute war in the traditional sense but the unrest and chaos that ensues could become the “typical war” of this century.
He said that this type of conflict creates devastating social, economic and political results that, in effect, equate to a war.
In dealing with this form of modern conflict, Gerasimov said greater emphasis needs to be placed on intelligence and dominance of the “information space.”
This new form of conflict, he said, is occurring through remote contactless war in which strategic, operational and tactical levels – offensive and defensive actions – become less distinguishable.
As a result, more of an asymmetrical, or unconventional, warfare will become more commonplace. The growing concern for a power is being dragged into a conflict that it doesn’t want.
In pointing to the way the United States has conducted limited warfare since the 2003 U.S.-Iraq conflict and then in Libya, Gerasimov believes that the U.S. approach of C4ISR is the way to go for increasing Russian military capability.
C4ISR is Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
The Russian military will be looking to more of a non-nuclear approach than the way the armed forces are now taking. Gerasimov has the backing of a number of Russian strategists who advocate more of a non-nuclear deterrence.
Such a non-nuclear deterrence will include high-precision, long-range conventional weapons such as the U.S. now uses in its drone campaign against terrorist locations.
Remote warfare will be the preference – what some call Sixth Generation Warfare – that will rely more on information and communications systems and the ability to hit targets with great precision from half a world away, as the U.S. does now in its drone warfare.
Advocates want this type of warfare integrated into Russia’s military doctrine. It is a form of network-centric capabilities.
This is a type of warfare developed by the U.S. Department of Defense in the 1990s. It calls for a robust networked military force capable of information sharing.
This information sharing improves the quality of information and shared situational awareness which, in turn, enhances collaboration toward mission effectiveness.
Because Russia doesn’t have a non-nuclear deterrence policy doctrine, Russian strategic thinkers believe the approach of C4ISR network-centric warfare offers the only viable conventional option to meet future international crises.
Moscow’s defense plan remains secret but analysts believe the Russian military will be going the way Gerasimov outlined in his recent speech to increase its conventional capability through C2ISR within the next five years.
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/see-which-power-is-building-its-military/#OZgkxHEdXuuvqYbR.99
- See which power is building its military (wnd.com)
- Turmoil, chaos join forces in Pakistan (wnd.com)
- U.S. ships threatened by secret China EMPs (wnd.com)
- Dod: U.s. War Machine Vulnerable to Emp Event (bobusnr.wordpress.com)
- Americans Getting Serious About Impeachment (itmakessenseblog.com)
- Next Stuxnet May Target North Korea (aworldchaos.wordpress.com)
- Government ammunition stockpiling story breaks through media censorship and goes mainstream (dprogram.net)
Is this really a North Korean propaganda video about life in the United States?
2:26 PM 03/13/2013
I’m calling BS on this, but either way it’s pretty funny.
A new video has been posted to the Live Leak site that claims to be a North Korean propaganda video showing a dystopian American society.
It’s unclear if the translation is accurate, and whether the video did in fact originate in North Korea…
But if true, the video is hilarious in its attempt to create an imaginary America where the population lives off of snow and has eaten the entire population of birds. Yes, that’s right, the video repeatedly claims that there are no birds in America because the people have been forced to eat all of them.
How Americans Live Today
This is how Americans live today: drinking coffee made from snow and living in tents and buying guns to kill each other, especially children. Some people complain about the guns.
Living on the streets of modern-day America.
These trees are full of snow. You’ll see that there are no birds. They’ve been eaten by the people who live in these tents and corridors. This man awaits heroin.
Their houses blow down very easily, and they have to live in tents like these.
This man will show us his tent with pride. He points to his items, but the camera notices his roof has fallen down. This is common in modern-day America. The American Red Cross supplies curtains and walls from material from North Korea.
Dem Rep. on Candid Camera Admits: ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Just the Beginning, Handgun Ban May Be Possible
Mar. 11, 2013 2:26pm Billy Hallowell
Photo Credit: Jason Mattera/YouTube
A new video released by conservative activist Jason Mattera will surely have gun rights advocates up in arms. In an exchange with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that was caught on camera last month but only released Monday, the Democratic politician spoke openly about her gun control views, noting that current proposals are only the beginning.
Perhaps the most contentious portion of the dialogue, which purportedly took place at a women’s rights rally, is the section in which she seems to indicate that a much larger push against firearms could inevitably take aim at handguns.
At the beginning of the exchange, Mattera identifies himself but tells Schakowsky that he “appreciated her remarks” (he does not indicate his conservative worldview and she appears not to recognize him). Considering these tactics, his introduction potentially gained her trust, leading the congresswoman to candidly share her views. He also repeatedly addressed her using “we” and it appears as though Schakowsky doesn’t realize she’s being recorded.
“I was wondering, is it time we have a serious conversation not just about assault rifles, but about handguns as well?,” Mattera asked.
“Well, that’s why if we have universal background checks, that will effect every single kind of weapon,” she replied. “The Brady Campaign thinks that of all the things that have been suggested, this may actually be the thing that does the most to prevent gun violence.”
The congressional leader went on to say that there is a “moment of opportunity” and that political leaders are “going to push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” When Mattera then noted that most gun deaths are the result of handguns and questioned why addressing those type of firearms isn’t currently on the table, Schakowsky was candid, later adding that she’s personally opposed to handguns.
“We’re not going to be able to win that — not now,” she said. “But background checks I think are going to, you know, address any kind of weapon.”
Mattera, again, pushed handguns as a point of conversation, noting that a full-throttle ban could never be secured, considering the Second Amendment’s current wording.
“I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t,” Schakowsky said, going on to note that some municipalities in her district have banned handguns, seemingly driving home the point that there is support among select cohorts for more restrictive measures in this arena. ”I don’t think it’s precluded.”
Watch the video, below:
It should be noted that Mattera used a number of misleading tactics in speaking with Schakowsky. In addition to telling her that he appreciated her words, he also used “we” when discussing the chances of achieving a handgun ban (i.e. “We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated”). These measures were seemingly used to gain her trust and to make a foray into the conversation. We should also note the video is edited.
Since its inception, TheBlaze has maintained that reporters — especially conservative ones — should not rely upon these mechanisms for retrieving information, as they are misleading tools that do not allow for an ethical and robust pursuit for truth. That said, we do feel a responsibility to report on controversial comments made by public figures.
Editor’s note — We discussed this story and the ethics of using deception in interviews during Tuesday’s BlazeCast:
Other Must-Read Stories:
MSNBC Host Flips Out Over Soda Ban Being Overturned — Accuses Soft Drink Makers Of ‘Poisoning Children’
Mar. 12, 2013 9:42am Mike Opelka
Following a New York court’s 11th-hour ruling that overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s “soda ban,” at least one liberal TV host could not contain her anger. MSNBC and “Morning Joe” host Mika Brzezinski was not just visibly upset by the news, she went on a bit of a crazed rant that included some strong accusations.
A few of the charges and outrageous statements made this morning from the host:
Industry groups like theater owners serve popcorn that is so full of salt it will kill you and these big drinks that you sit for two hours and drink and become sick… uh, they were elated. (:32 into the clip)
Oh, look at this! (mocking tone) The American Beverage Association is relieved because they can continue to make money poisoning people. (:52 into the clip)
At some point there will be a clamp down on the beverage industry, just like the cigarette industry. And they will wear a black hat. (3:53)
Legal action will continue until they are brought down… Until they stop putting sugar, salts, and terrible fats into our food and making them addictive.
Don’t be mad at me about that, be mad that you buy this stuff again and again and again. These companies feel like they have to produce poison for you and your children. (5:20 into the clip)
I’m just saying, it’s killing us and it’s killing our children. It’s liquid sugar and sugar is poison. (5:40 into the clip)
Joe Scarborough made an effort to temper his co-host’s outrage, saying, ““Most New Yorkers agree with this judge. Don’t tell us what to drink.” Mika did not care about public opinion, she was on a mission to deliver her message and continued.
When Brzezinski talked about the companies feeling like they have to “produce poison”, Scarborough tried to reign her in, “Stop it. Stop it, I think I’ve given you enough lead here. Reel it back in on this.” (5:20 into the clip)
Most of the “Morning Joe” on-camera crew was not as strident as Ms. Brzezinski. At one point a staffer was seen wearing a hat with two “Big Gulp” drinks from 7-11 while discussing the constitutionality of the soda ban.
The contrary point of view only seemed to inspire Brzezinski into more rants on what she considers to be toxic foods.
Watch the segment here.
11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;”>Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Are Journalists and Academics Purposefully Re-Writing the Bible to Make It a ‘Tool of Progressive Social Change’?
Mar. 13, 2013 11:54am Billy Hallowell
The mainstream media’s handling of issues pertaining to religion has always received a fair bit of scrutiny from conservatives and people of faith, alike, as outlets are generally perceived as lacking understanding about these important cultural structures. And academics and entertainers, too, are frequently accused by conservatives of being biased against both religious sentiment and right-of-center perspectives.
Believing that these sectors work diligently to expand left-leaning policies and ideologies, an intriguing, yet controversial, question has arisen: Are journalists, academics and Hollywood elite purposefully re-writing the Bible to make it a tool of progressive social change?
A new report by the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute (CMI) entitled, “Rewriting the Bible: The Gospel According to Liberals,” tackles this very subject, alleging that entertainers, journalists and professors, alike, are re-writing the Bible and using it to their ideological advantage.
Written by Paul Wilson, a fellow at CMI, the report charges that these parties — regular targets of conservative angst — have been reworking holy scriptures in an effort to drive home liberal ideals. TheBlaze was given a sneak-peak at the report before its release later this afternoon. We will be sharing some portions of the document to showcase what readers can expect to find within its text.
Vice President Joe Biden (L) places his hand on the Biden family Bible held by his wife Jill Biden as he takes the oath of office from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayo during and official ceremony at the Naval Observatory on January 20, 2013 in Washington. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)To begin, let’s explore Wilson’s main contentions about Hollywood, the mainstream media and left-learning politicians:
When they aren’t actively denigrating religion, liberal journalists, entertainers, and politicians use faith as a weapon to bludgeon conservatives. They decided to reinterpret and rewrite the Bible to prop up their brand of politicized theology, claiming, as Huffington Post’s Mike Lux did, that “it is overwhelmingly supportive of … liberal, lefty, progressive values.” At The Washington Post, Marxist ideas have been attributed to the Acts of the Apostles and Jesus’ parable of the talents became a class warfare lesson. The Huffington Post told readers that the Bible champions homosexuality “if only we’re reading it correctly,” to the point of depicting Jesus on the cross with the word “faggot” replacing “INRI.” At the pro-abortion site RH Reality Check, a writer misinterpreted Genesis passages to argue that the Bible supports abortion. Whatever the left-wing cause, chances are the left and their media allies have subverted the Bible to justify it.
On the media front, CMI pointed to a number of issues that purportedly show bias . . .(Read More)
Other Must-Read Stories:
Media Bully Five Guys Entrepreneur For Telling Truth About Obamacare
by Larry O’Connor 13 Mar 2013, 5:16 AM PDT
When Mike Ruffer, an eight franchise owner of the Five Guys hamburger chain revealed this week that the economic impact of Obamacare would force him to raise the price of the popular burgers, he received national attention including a segment on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Did you see the story, one of the franchise owners for that hamburger chain, Five Guys hamburger chain or whatever (paraphrasing), “We’re gonna have to get rid of a whole bunch of employees, get down to mostly part-timers. We can’t afford Obamacare. We can’t stay in business with it. The prices are gonna go up. The consumer’s are gonna pay for it. That’s the only way my employees can have health care, is if I raise the price of the food here and the customers pay for it.” And he’s worried the customers aren’t gonna have any money, nobody is, because of the budget situation and the economy.
When a business owner sticks his neck out and criticizes big government policies like Obamacare, you can count on the media to try to bully them into silence.Matt Yglesias at Slate.com called Ruffer a liar because, you know, Yglesias knows the hamburger business better than the North Carolina entrepreneur:
This is self-refuting nonsense. The only situation in which it would make sense for Ruffer to raise prices is if price increases will on net lead to higher revenue. And if price increases will lead to higher revenue (which they might) then it makes sense for Ruffer to raise prices no matter what happens with Obamacare.MORE
- Five Guys Outlets To Raise Burger Prices Thanks to Obamacare (breitbart.com)
Mike Ruffer, Five Guys Franchise Owner, Says Obamacare Will Increase Menu Prices (huffingtonpost.com)
ObamaCare is About to Make Five Guys’ Burgers Cost More (pjmedia.com)
Feds buying 100 years worth of ammo
Government’s argument ‘could only fool a career civil servant’
Published: 16 hours ago
When the numbers are put in perspective, the federal government’s extraordinary buildup of ammunition looks even more ominous than critics already have portrayed it.
An analysis by Forbes contributor Ralph Benko shows the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo that the government is acquiring would be enough for more than 100 years of training.
As WND previously reported, it also would be enough ammunition to fight a war for more than 20 years.
It would give the federal government enough ammunition to shoot every American more than five times.
Concerned about surveillance drones, tanks in the streets and gun confiscation? Find out “HOW AMERICA IS BECOMING A POLICE STATE” in this shocking WND special report.
The Department of Homeland Security argues it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.
Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.
“To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.
But it’s not just the amount of ammo the feds are buying, it’s the type of ammo that’s also is causing concern.
WND has reported the DHS order apparently includes hollow-point bullets. As WND recently reported, she believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
The liberal white illuminati’s race war (Finally, a black man speaks out against political correctness and its divisive effects! JM)
Exclusive: Mychal Massie explains why the left despises Americans like him
Published: 17 hours ago
by Mychal Massie Email | Archive
In recent years, many have voiced concern to me pursuant to Obama instigating a race war between blacks and whites. I argue, we are already in a race war and have been since every race-based divisive piece of legislation and every segregative word, phrase and assignation became the parlance of the day.
The idea of blacks not having a level playing field and blacks needing special dispensation from the caring white liberals has transmogrified into an intellectual pursuit of understanding for whites suffering from guilt and the liberal white illuminati who treat same as their exclusive realm of intellectual empathy.
Nearly every reference made pursuant to blacks and/or about them contributes to the raging race war that no one wants to admit is taking place and has been taking place since the beginning of the 20th century, when Lenin looked across the ocean and declared that the former slaves and first-generation freeborn blacks “were ripe for revolution.” (See my column “Jehmu Greene: Portrait of black bigotry.”)
Whites, based on grammatical ignorance varnished with political correctness and promulgated as proper, are contributing massively to the deterioration, indeed, the very destruction of harmony among all Americans.
Nothing sickens me to my stomach more than the unwitting and/or pompous liberal illuminati making references to “African-American, the black community, the black church, the black educational system,” or any other of countless race-based assignations covertly designed to divide, separate, alienate and develop the idea that blacks are aboriginal Americans.
People, whites specifically, take no thought to the fact that every time they speak using race-based assignations they contribute to the dissolution of the American fabric they want to believe they are making stronger. Segregative language does just that – it segregates.
Even conservative blacks unconsciously use segregative language and word pictures. The pervasiveness of such language is insidious to the point that it is accepted as normative.
THE BLAZE by BECKET ADAMS (State Department chooses anti-semite and America hater, Ibarhimas, for the “Women of Courage Award!” But that was later rescinded when the public expressed outrage. Perhaps a female Constitutional conservative ought to be considered, as speaking out, in support of that Document, is extremely dangerous in many areas of this nation. JM)
THE BLAZE by JASON HOWERTON,CHRISTOPHER SANTARELLI, BECKET ADAMS, MEREDITH JESSUP, MIKE OPELKA, ERICA RITZ, LIZ KLIMAS, and TIFFANY GABBAY
Why Is the Air Force Suddenly Removing Drone Strike Data?
Posted March 8, 2013 at 10:39 pm by Jason Howerton
Does Your Neighbor’s Drone Infringe on Your Privacy Rights?
Posted March 8, 2013 at 8:20 am by Christopher Santarelli
What’s the Future for Drones and Local Law Enforcement?
Posted March 8, 2013 at 6:41 am by Christopher Santarelli
Fox’s Shep Smith Goes on Scathing Rant Against Obama’s Drone Strike Policy: ‘Are You Kidding Me?’
Posted March 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm by Jason Howerton
Dems Have a Hard Time Explaining Why They Skipped Rand Paul’s Drone Filibuster: ‘I’ve Got Stuff to Do’
Posted March 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm by Jason Howerton
“I’m working right now on many, many, other issues.”
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Introduce Legislation to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens — Read the Entire Bill Here
Posted March 7, 2013 at 4:15 pm by Jason Howerton
“The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.”
(UPDATED) Eric Holder’s New Letter to Sen. Rand Paul: Here’s Your Answer
Posted March 7, 2013 at 2:01 pm by Becket Adams
“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?”
Meet the only Democrat who stood up for the Constitution Wednesday
Posted March 7, 2013 at 12:35 pm by Meredith Jessup
Sens. McCain & Graham Dedicate Morning to Discrediting Paul Filibuster (Graham Even Uses a Shame Chart!)
Posted March 7, 2013 at 12:00 pm by Becket Adams
Sen. Graham even brought a chart with him for his little presentation.
‘It’s Really Not That Easy To Talk That Long’: Sen. Rand Paul’s First Interview Since Ending Nearly 13-Hr. Filibuster
Posted March 7, 2013 at 10:53 am by Becket Adams
It’s about civil rights.
How Did the Mainstream Media Cover Rand Paul’s Historic Filibuster?
Posted March 7, 2013 at 10:00 am by Mike Opelka
A sad reminder about Barack Obama’s past
Posted March 7, 2013 at 9:54 am by Meredith Jessup
Ron Paul ‘proud’ of son’s filibuster effort
Posted March 7, 2013 at 8:43 am by Meredith Jessup
Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul Is Able to Get Support for His Drone Filibuster From the Far-Left
Posted March 7, 2013 at 2:36 am by Jason Howerton
”Just because I disagree with Rand Paul on 90% of issues, does that mean I have to disagree with him on the other 10%?”
Here Are All the GOP Senators That Participated in Rand Paul’s 12+ Hour Filibuster… and the Ones Who Didn’t
Posted March 7, 2013 at 1:30 am by Jason Howerton
#StandWithRand was the number one trending topic worldwide on Twitter
White House Has Nothing to Say About Potential Drone Strikes Against Americans in U.S.
Posted March 7, 2013 at 12:35 am by Jason Howerton
“You’d think that would be a pretty easy answer for them.”
You Will Never Believe Who Said ‘Rand Paul Is the MAN’ for Filibuster — Seriously, You Won’t
Posted March 6, 2013 at 11:40 pm by Jason Howerton
Liberal Actor on GOP-Led Filibuster Over Drones: ‘For God’s Sake, Where Are Democrats?’
Posted March 6, 2013 at 11:01 pm by Jason Howerton
”Dems? Do [you] have any thoughts on Obama’s transition from a progressive academic humanist [to] a regressive corporate warlord?”
Krauthammer on Rand Paul’s Filibuster: This Is His Moment, ‘He Will Be Remembered’
Posted March 6, 2013 at 10:30 pm by Jason Howerton
“A stroke of political genius.”
Top 10 Quotes From Rand Paul’s Amazing Filibuster on Civil Liberties, Drone Strikes
Posted March 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm by Jason Howerton
“Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?”
‘Real News’ Panel Takes on Rand Paul’s Filibuster and Drones
Posted March 6, 2013 at 8:00 pm by Christopher Santarelli
Sen. Ted Cruz Batters Eric Holder on Domestic Drone Strikes in Tense Exchange
Posted March 6, 2013 at 2:00 pm by Erica Ritz
“You keep saying appropriate. My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”
‘Your Right To Trial By Jury Is Precious’: Sen. Rand Paul Stages Nearly 13 Hour Old-School Filibuster Over Drone Strikes
Posted March 6, 2013 at 12:56 pm by Becket Adams
• Sen. Paul: “I will not sit quietly and let the president shred the Constitution.”
• Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) step in to help Paul.
• Sen. Wyden: “Every American deserves to know when the government thinks it has the right to kill them.”
• Sen. Rubio cracks joke at his own expense — advises Paul to keep water close by.
• Sen. Reid intervenes to end debate — Paul rejects!
• On to the twelfth hour!
Revealed: Drones Equipped With Spy Tech Detailed Enough to See If You’re Armed
Posted March 6, 2013 at 9:28 am by Liz Klimas
“…capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”
Drone Strikes on U.S. Soil? Glenn Beck Weighs In
Posted March 5, 2013 at 8:34 pm by Tiffany Gabbay
“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”
- 12 hours, 52 minutes, over a million Tweets: @SenRandPaul’s filibuster to debate drone policy, by @bcoyne (nextlevelofnews.com)
- Rand’s 2016 Chances Better Than Many Realize (realclearpolitics.com)
- Rand Paul filibusters Brennan on Senate floor over drones (tv.msnbc.com)
- Obama Addresses Drone Filibuster (huffingtonpost.com)
- CNN Denigrates Rand Paul Drone Filibuster, Plays Up Supposed Racism of Fox’s Roger Ailes (newsbusters.org)
- Fun with words: See the wordcloud from Rand Paul’s filibuster (watchdog.org)
- Let’s Build on the Paul Filibuster (conservativeread.com)
10 of the Most Shocking & Revealing Secrets from an Alleged Former TSA Agent: ‘It’s All for Show’
Mar. 11, 2013 8:29am Jonathon M. Seidl
NEW YORK, NY – FEBRUARY 28: Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers walk through John F. Kennedy Airport on February 28, 2013 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images
The New York Post on Sunday published an op-ed from someone claiming to be a former TSA agent at Newark’s Liberty Airport, the same airport where agents failed to detect a fake bomb sent through during secret test last month. According to the op-ed, such a mistake isn’t really that surprising considering the culture at TSA.
Below, we’ve excerpted the 10 most shocking admissions the person makes.
10. I’ve had to screen small children and explain to their parents I had no choice but to “check” them. I would only place my hands on their arms and bottom half of their legs, and the entire “pat-down” lasted 10 seconds. This goes completely against TSA procedure.
9. Did you know you don’t need a high-school diploma or GED to work as a security screener? These are the same screeners that TSA chief John Pistole and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refer to as a first-class first line of defense in the war on terror.
8. When there are internal tests, conducted by the Newark training department, it’s easy to cheat because they use our co-workers. You could be working with someone all morning, and then they’re gone. Word gets around the checkpoint. Someone will come over to you and say, “Hey, it’s Joe. He’s got a blue duffel bag.”
7. We always said it’s not a question of if terrorists get through — it’s a question of when. Our feeling is nothing’s happened because they haven’t wanted it to happen. We’re not any big deterrent. It’s all for show.
6. Most TSA screeners know their job is a complete joke. Their goal is to use this as a stepping stone to another government agency.
5. We work in a culture where common sense has no place. All but a very few TSA personnel know they’re employed by a bottom-of-the-barrel agency.
Our first question to anyone in a wheelchair is to ask if they’re able to stand for a pat-down. If someone is in a wheelchair, he likely can’t stand. Even when they’re sitting, we’re required to ask them to move so we can check under their buttocks.
4. Supervisors play absolutely no role in day-to-day functions except to tell you not to chew gum. Gum chewing is a huge issue with management.
3. Goofing off and half-hour-long bathroom breaks are the only way to break up the monotony. There is also a lot of ogling of female passengers by the male screeners. So, ladies, cover up when you get to the airport. These guys are checking you out constantly.
2. Screeners start at $15 per hour, and there is tons of overtime — mainly because they are filling in for the many screeners who don’t bother coming to work. For every 40 hours you work, you receive four hours of vacation and four hours of sick time.
1. One screener didn’t come to work for four weeks. When he finally reappeared, he asked for another week off. The answer was no. So what did this brainiac decide to do? He took another week off — and didn’t get terminated.
Read plenty more admissions over at the Post.
- Confessions of a TSA agent: We’re a bunch of airheads (nypost.com)
- TSA Screener Describes Epic Fail (conservativenewsandviews.com)
- Former TSA agent rips into agency days after agents failed to detect a fake bomb (politics.kfyi.com)