Monday, December 31, 2012

Here’s an article I found while surfing the net.

The most interesting part is the comments following the article…

Note that the "M1 Carbine" using the .30 Carbine round (about as powerful as a .357 pistol round, which is NOT insignificant), would be banned, having a detachable 15 or 30 round magazine, whereas the much more powerful "M1 Garand", using the .30-06 round, apparently would NOT be banned, because it ONLY has an 8 round en bloc clip......duh......which one would do the most damage, you super intelligent lawyers??  
 Several million dead Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, and Chinese Communists would rise up and testify as to the effectiveness of an 8 round Garand.....except, as previously noted, they are still DEAD from the overwhelming effect of their effectiveness!!


The Gun Control Debate Continues

Last week, there was a huge amount of media coverage of the gun-control debate that has gripped the Nation in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. The emotionally charged national conversation has been chock full of harsh knee-jerk gun control proposals from the left.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced recently that she will introduce legislation early in 2013 that will essentially criminalize millions of law-abiding American gun owners.
A summary of the legislation posted on the Senator’s website is as follows:
  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms;
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
Feinstein, who co-introduced the original assault weapons ban in 1994, is “going for broke” with her 2012 version, according to the National Rifle Association. The bill would classify three rifles that are decades old and extremely popular throughout the Nation as assault rifles: the M1 Carbine, a model of the Ruger Mini-14 and virtually any variation of the SKS.
The bill would ban any firearm with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds (except for tubular-magazine .22s), threaded barrels on handguns and any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

The NRA points out that Feinstein’s bill would also open the possibility of government prosecution of firearm enthusiasts who don’t even break her harsh anti-2nd Amendment law:
Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

The bill would not immediately lead to government confiscation of semi-automatics considered by her definition as assault weapons, but would require owners to register the firearms with the Federal government by submitting photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), informing the ATF of the address where the firearm will be kept and obtaining the ATF’s permission to transport the firearm across State lines. It would also impose a $200 per firearm tax.

In the end, however, Feinstein wants ultimate confiscation of any firearm she and other 2nd Amendment haters deem too dangerous for Americans. Owners of so-called assault rifles would not be permitted to pass them on to loved ones after death, the point at which the Federal government would confiscate the firearms.

Here's more: 

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington

THE VIEW (an obscure TV show)

I never watch the view myself.  
I tried to once but found it to be nothing but a bunch of left wing bitches spewing a lot of socialist nonsense.  However, even a show this bad can have a few good moments every now and then.  Here is one such clip.   



President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” Obama said in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

In the wake of the Dec. 14 mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., school, the president has launched a White House task force led by Vice President Biden to present proposals in January to help stem gun violence. Obama has said that he would seek a broad approach to the problem addressing the role of violence in entertainment and measures to improve mental healthcare.

But he has also called on Congress to move quickly to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.

Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action.

“I've been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

“I'd like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden's task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off."

But the push for heightened gun control will likely face tough political opposition, with the nation’s largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying they will oppose any new restrictions.

The group earlier this month held a press conference calling for national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, a move they said would be more effective at preventing future tragedies like in Newtown.

Obama in the interview said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but he expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal.

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said.

Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting spree that killed 20 young children.

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

Sunday, December 30, 2012


LAWS ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE and not for David Gregory.

50 shades of 2012

This was written by one of the few conservatives in California.  I think that alone makes it worth passing on.

By Ron Hart   from The Orange County Register

Here is my annual look back at the year that was:
1...Hillary Clinton denied knowing much about the Benghazi attacks, and then said she had a "concussion" and could not testify. It made us all feel nostalgic to hear a Clinton denying things again.

2...Hillary and the Obama administration blamed an obscure YouTube video for the murder of our ambassador to Libya. She will prove hard to replace; the ability to quickly blame others is what Barack Obama looks for in a cabinet appointee.

3...John Kerry, who is like Al Gore without the flash and sizzle, was quickly appointed secretary of state. Democrats did not want to leave the seat vacant for long for fear Clint Eastwood would start yelling at it. With Kerry, the plan is apparently to bore our adversaries into agreeing with us.

4...Tension mounted as an increasingly divided country reacted to the most divisive president ever. Many states in the South petitioned the White House to secede. In the South, "Fifty Shades of Grey" is not an erotic novel; it is the new Confederate uniform catalogue. On the bright side, if we do secede, Northern sportswriters might eventually get it right in always ranking Notre Dame number one.

5...Arguments for gun control surfaced again after shootings in Oregon, Colorado and Connecticut. We carry more guns in the South, but there is more gun control in the North. I find it interesting that all the mass shootings are up there. Hmmm.

6...Chicago is our country's murder capital, and it has strong "gun control laws." Gangs kill so many Chicagoans that Mayor Rahm Emanuel runs the only city with a Social Security surplus. Chicago's ban on guns helped it to a 19.4 per 100,000 persons murder rate; the number in gun-friendly San Antonio, Texas is only 8.6. If you want to see where things are heading here, Hugo Chavez' Caracas, Venezuela (which was praised by the UN for its gun control laws) had 130 murders per 100,000 people.

7...Facebook struggled in 2012 and began to develop its own "Farmville"-type games. Its most successful game to date is "Let's see who has gotten fat since high school."

8...Kim Jung Un burnished his evil dictator credentials by pretending to launch a fake intercontinental ballistic missile on the one-year anniversary of his father's death. If bumbling North Korea does decide to develop a nuke or ICBM, just give it time and the problem will resolve itself Road Runner style. We hear that government sources do not consider "Glorious Leader" Kim Jong Il dead. The official North Korean press says the elder Kim entered a sleeping contest and is clearly still winning. His son was catapulted to officer status this year and attained the North Korean Army's highest rank: five feet and two inches tall.

9...The Supreme Court surprised most by ruling in favor of Obamacare. And Usher won the judge's seat on "The Voice." Chief Justice John Roberts was considered, but the show's producers felt he was too unreliable.

10...Romney was crushed by the women's vote. He proudly admitted in a debate that he kept a binder of women for jobs on his staff. Women like nothing better than to be alphabetized.

11...General David Petraeus invited all his generals to a farewell barbecue dinner at his house. He asked them to bring their favorite side dish, and they all brought their biographers.

12..Joe Paterno's statue at Penn State was taken down. Perhaps a more fitting tribute would be to turn the statue and just make it look in the other way.

13...Slow-motion train wreck Charlie Sheen returned to TV with "Anger Management," wherein he only talks about his anger issues and presumes he has no issues with drinking or prescription drugs (primarily because anger does not buy commercial time on the show).

14...Secret Service agents agreed to overpay an "escort" $800 in Colombia, which would buy you a Ford Escort there. However, when using their own money instead of the taxpayers', they negotiated down to $80. Score another win for free market principles.

15...Democrats want to do something about global warming, the Republicans the debt. Perhaps they can compromise and have fans installed on the debt ceiling.

16...Washington battled for a debt ceiling agreement all year. Without borrowing massive amounts of money, they tell us that the federal government would "cease to function." This raises the question: How could we tell?

Ron Hart is a libertarian op-ed humorist and award-winning author who can be reached at:

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Diane Feinstein's Gun Control Bill

Lurking behind the debate over gun control in the US is the debate over expanding government versus freedom.  The framers of the US Constitution came down on the side of freedom and limited government.  The founders knew men naturally desire to be free, even if some men abuse that freedom. They likewise knew that it is inherent in government, even a necessary government, to diminish freedom.

Many bureaucrats in government, today, do not understand the limits of government in the US and come down on the side of an ever-expanding government power.  They want to diminish more and more freedom.  Every time an incident with guns happens, these power-hungry, government bureaucrats become afraid.  They are afraid that if citizens have guns, there may come a time when those citizens will use their guns to keep their freedom.  Well, personally I think that’s a good thing. 

Having said that, what is the REAL reason so many citizens own or want to own a gun?  Very simply put, it is due to the realization that the government will not be able to protect you when needed, or even worse, will have no desire to do so.

Before I go any further, I want to make something clear.  I am not a “gun lover”.   I don’t like carrying a gun. I’ve spent several years of my life carrying guns both in the military and as a civilian and I don’t enjoy it.  They are heavy and uncomfortable and you are always aware you have it and you must behave accordingly.  Guns are a pain.  I only carry one because the pain of watching people butchered while I looked on helplessly would be immeasurably worse.

The other day, on December 27th, 2012, Senator Diane Feinstein released a summary of a bill that would strip away our right to buy (and perhaps in the future, own) semi-automatic rifles and handguns.  She likes to call them assault weapons, because she is completely ignorant of the meaning of the term.  (Memo to the Media: Please learn what an “automatic” weapon is and isn’t. Please.)

Oh by the way, speaking of “Dummy Feinstein”, PLEASE WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO.

How’s that for typical politician hypocrisy?  It’s OK for her to own and carry a gun for protection, but not for you and I.  Our lives don’t matter because we are not a big important senator.  What a bunch of BULLSHIT.

My two cents on this idiot’s proposed bill 

1. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and “shall not be infringed” do these Feinstein and other Dumb-o-crats in Congress NOT understand?

2. Even if you don’t like semi-automatic rifles, the criteria in her list includes many handguns that people use for self-defense, such as Glocks, Springfield XD’s, etc.  If passed, her bill would reduce us to use revolvers and some semi-auto guns that hold less than ten rounds in their magazines, for self-defense and concealed carry purposes.  This would leave us ill-protected against criminals and tyrants (but I repeat myself) because in today’s world, revolvers are inferior weapons, although better than nothing.  Don’t believe me?  Look up the 1986 FBI Miami Shootout and what the FBI’s response was.

3. Registration?  Seriously?  Historically registration has always led to confiscation of those weapons by the government, which means that anyone that does register their guns is getting set up to be screwed.  (Word of advice for gun owners, although you probably know this by now: don’t register your guns, you’re just going to lose them later.)

4. The left’s solution to the failure of gun control, such as in Chicago, California, or Connecticut (which has protective weapon bans and high crime) is… more gun control. This will not end with this bill; they will “progress” until all firearms have been banned and confiscated (see #3.) It is in their nature to do so.

5. Remember, the idiot who wrote this bill is the same person that carried a gun for self-defense and has a hard-to-get California CCW permit.  She, and other lords and ladies like her, can carry a gun, but us peasants can’t?

6. Even if you hate guns, you should still oppose this bill, because ultimately this is about freedom.  You have the right to protect yourself in whatever fashion you see fit, whether that’s with a baseball bat, a handgun, or yes, a semi-automatic rifle.  This bill effectively says, “You can only protect yourself with certain tools authorized by the State.”  Soon, in the not too distant future, the government will effectively say, “You have no right to defend yourself at all.”

7. Even if this bill doesn’t pass now, they will pass it in 2015 IF the Democrats take back the House.  Hopefully, this bill will fail now and give law-abiding gun owners one last chance to stock up on ammunition.  When the consequences of out-of-control debt hit us, and riots break out in the streets all across America, they’ll need it to protect themselves and their families.  But of course, this all depends on the willingness of the Republicans to fight, and given their tendency to capitulate to the left on the fiscal cliff debate, I doubt they’ll fight for our 2nd amendment rights.

Here's another one!!! 


Note that the "M1 Carbine" using the .30 Carbine round (about as powerful as a .357 pistol round, which is NOT insignificant), would be banned, having a detachable 15 or 30 round magazine, whereas the much more powerful "M1 Garand", using the .30-06 round, apparently would NOT be banned, because it ONLY has an 8 round en bloc clip......duh......which one would do the most damage, you super intelligent lawyers??  
 Several million dead Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, and Chinese Communists would rise up and testify as to the effectiveness of an 8 round Garand.....except, as previously noted, they are still DEAD from the overwhelming effect of their effectiveness!!

Savage behavior

Gun ban (the real reason) – Michael Savage and the link between the First and Second Amendment

Savage behavior

 By Doug Hagmann  Saturday, December 29, 2012
Gun and ammunition sales have been rising over the last few years, as have the number of concealed weapon permits being issued across the country. Please note I am not referring to the recent panic buying spree of semi-automatic weapons since the Sandy Hook school shooting. What is the real reason behind the rise of weapon sales and increase in concealed carry permits? Who might be to blame, or if you are a manufacturer or gun store owner, who could be thanked?  What if I told you it is national talk show host Michael Savage? Don’t believe me? Read on.

Reason for owning an “assault weapon”

Contrary to the recent claims by Progressives, err, Socialists, is that men who own such big and scary guns is to compensate for physical deficiencies below the waist, owning a semi-automatic weapon is due to the realization that the government will not be able to protect you when needed, or will simply not protect you at all. While everyone points to major visible natural disasters and man-made crises from hurricanes to riots, there is a much more subtle and arguably, much more serious threat that everyone seems to be missing. It is no better illustrated by the situation of well-known talk show host Michael Savage.

Regardless of what you think of him or his beliefs, everyone should be paying very close attention to his plight, especially if you have strong opinions and are willing to voice them.  In May of 2009, Dr. Savage learned that he was banned from traveling to Great Britain “because his views might provoke violence.”  He was on a list of 22 people, the names of 16 which were released by Great Britain Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.  After three-and-a-half years, he is still banned for having legitimate opinions and voicing them.  Our government has done absolutely nothing to intervene on his behalf or protect his right to freedom of speech.  Wait, you might ask, what does this have to do with the push to ban certain weapons in the U.S?  Plenty, if you understand the actual agenda of those behind the coming weapons ban, and not the official story line spewed ad nauseum by our elected officials and their lapdog media.

They are not JUST coming for your guns

To most Americans, including those who have been paying attention, it would seem that the core issue is the prohibition of certain types of weapons, ostensibly to avert another mass shooting. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it is much more. It is a magic act being performed right in front of you, and Michael Savage was the first talk show host to be tossed into the global cauldron of forced tolerance and involuntary censorship. He was added to a witch’s brew with real terrorists with evil intent, whose possession of roadside bombs far outnumber their opinions and whose ability to cause death and destruction exist by their actions, not by someone else’s reaction. Of those on the banned travel list stewing in the global “mind-think,” Dr Savage is the sole “tincture of opinion” in the brew, and there’s room for you in the cauldron. The recipe even demands it.

Have you noticed that anyone who has recently voiced support for an American’s Second Amendment rights has been systematically vilified by those in opposition, such that it is virtually impossible to have an honest, intelligent conversation about the issue? This is not an accident, but an agenda. It is an agenda of vilification, of the planned prohibition of not only “scary guns,” but of “scary talk.” It is characterizing vocal resistance to a government agenda as a prohibited behavior. It is forcing tolerance to fit a very specific, government sanctioned ideology, beyond which becomes not only an exhibit of intolerance, but of an intent intolerable to the government.

The issue of banning weapons is only the visible part of the magic act where the weapons are only the props. The real act is taking place behind the smoke onstage, where a legitimate and rational opinion that happens to be at odds with the government’s agenda is the real target. It is the plight of Dr. Savage in living color.

As the rights bestowed upon Americans by the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are inextricably linked, the government is not only intending to prohibit our possession of certain weapons, but of certain opinions. This is not merely an attack on our Second Amendment rights, but a method to take away our ability to exercise those granted to us by the First Amendment. It is YOU they are after, if your opinions don’t conform to their purpose.

First they came for Michael Savage…

The government of the United States of America has failed to protect the First Amendment rights of Michael Savage, as an American citizen. They willfully and knowingly failed to stand up for the rights of an American citizen who has done nothing more than voice his opinions while standing on American soil. They permitted the ideology of one nation, the very nation from which we fought and won independence, to violate the rights of one man of high profile and visibility. Moreover, they tolerated Mr. Savage being listed among the most heinous criminals to walk the earth for the appearance of “balance,” a fact admitted in official government correspondence, because the list contained so many Muslim extremists.

The issue here goes well beyond the prohibition of guns. It is the intended prohibition of any ideology antithetical to the government which has been guaranteed through our right to bear arms, including that right itself. For his opinions, Michael Savage has been banned from traveling to the U.K. and apparently everybody, including the U.S. government, is okay with that. It is an acquiescence or even a tacit approval of tyranny. We must never forget that the reason for the Second Amendment is to fight tyranny.

While Michael Savage is the most visible victim of such tyranny, it will not end with him. Absent of taking a firm, united and unmovable stand now for our rights as Americans under the Second Amendment, there will be more talk show hosts, more writers, more people with opinions to fall victim of government sanctioned oppression. If they can do what they’ve done to a man of his visibility, just imagine what they can do to you.

We are the real targets, and as exhibited by the restrictions placed on Mr. Savage, it is clear that the U.S. government will not protect us. We must protect ourselves and each other. Clearly, it is us who are the real targets and the planned prohibition of our guns is just the most expedient means to an end. His current plight, that of being on a list of terrorists and evildoers just for having and speaking an opinion contrary that some find intolerant, unacceptable and soon-to-be prohibited, is an active example of what every American who has recently bought a gun sees unfolding. They are seeing through the magician’s fog, and the government must maintain the magic show at all costs.

They came for Savage, and no one spoke out. When they come for you, who will be left?

Their tactics are clear.  The government wants to prevent “Savage behavior”, or the behavior of possessing and expressing opinions.  It begins with vilification, will proceed to confiscation, and then to elimination. History is repeating itself.


On January 1, regardless of the outcome of fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans will be hit with a $1 trillion Obamacare tax hike.


2nd Amendment hypocrisy

In an interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters, President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama joked about the President’s second term being a ploy to continue having their children protected by having “men with guns around at all times.”

In the highly personal interview, the President and first lady discussed their marriage and family life in the White House. When the conversation moved on to the Obama’s two daughters, the President discussed his dismay at the prospect of 14-year-old Malia becoming interested in dating boys.

The President joked, “One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times.”

The interview was reportedly taped on Dec.11 and was originally scheduled to air on Dec. 14, the same day of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, before being postponed.
The President’s men with guns remark has drawn criticisms of hypocrisy from 2nd Amendment advocates, as Obama has renewed calls for harsher gun-control laws in the wake of the tragedy earlier in the month.

Though many liberals balked at suggestions from the National Rifle Association and some lawmakers about arming teachers or providing armed guards for schools throughout the Nation, no less than 11 armed guards protect Sidwell Friends— the Washington, D.C. Area private school attended by the Obama daughters— according to news reports.
 Almost all the people calling for stricter gun control have armed body guards protecting them.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Americans Find They Were Duped

With Election Over, Americans Find They Were Duped By Democrats And Obama

Investor's Business Daily   Posted 12/24/2012

It hasn't been two months since Barack Obama won re-election, but already we're finding out things that were kept from us during the campaign. Expect to hear more in the coming months.

Elections are clarifying events, we're told. But sometimes what they clarify is merely the gap between what we were told during the campaign and the reality on the ground. Often, the two don't match. That's certainly true with Obama.

How often in recent weeks have we learned that what we heard on the campaign trail from the Obama camp, and which were echoed by a cowed and subservient press, were either distortions or outright lies — enough to keep a majority of us fooled, and help win a second term for the incumbent?

Now, we're finding the reality to be something different. And to jog your recollection, here are just a few:

• Economy: "The economy's getting stronger ... confidence is growing." The media and Obama repeated these like a mantra. But as IBD reported earlier, real weekly earnings for American workers have fallen 3.5% since Obama took over, a declining trend that has continued post-election.
How about other signs of well-being? The Census Bureau reported after the election that the number of Americans in poverty grew by 712,000 people in 2011. A far-more bullish report issued in September said it had fallen by 96,000. Oh yes, and a record 47 million people today are on food stamps — up 47% since Obama took over.
Meanwhile, we also heard that consumer confidence was strengthening — and that would lead to a spurt of new economic activity in the new year. But in December, the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index tumbled to 72.9, its lowest reading since June, from 82.7 in November.
Our own IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index fell 7.6% in December to 45.1, a pessimistic reading and the lowest since December 2011.
For small businesses, whom Obama regularly claimed to be helping while on the stump, the picture's no better. The National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Optimism Index fell 5.6 points in December to 87.5 — one of its lowest readings ever.
"Between the looming 'fiscal cliff,' the promise of higher health care costs and the endless onslaught of new regulations, owners have found themselves in a state of pessimism," said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg. Remember: Small businesses create 80% to 85% of all jobs.

• Employment: Yes, unemployment has dropped to 7.7%. But only because hundreds of thousands of Americans have left the workforce. In September and October, nonpayroll farm jobs were reported as rising 148,000 and 171,000, respectively, solid gains. The mainstream media played it up as a major turnaround for the economy, giving Obama a boost.
In early December, a new government jobs report highlighted that job growth was a 146,000 in November, less than the 151,000 average since the start of the year. And it revised September and October job growth down by 49,000.
Yes, the total number of people with private-sector jobs has grown by 2 million over the last year, as the White House proudly trumpets — and did on the campaign trail. But what never gets reported is that 2.4 million people have left the workforce entirely over the same stretch — so there is no net real job growth.

• Regulations: President Obama stayed virtually mum on the topic of regulation during his campaign. Smart move. The EPA is set to release a tidal wave of new rules to slash CO2 that will close as many as 332 energy plants, while costing the U.S. economy $700 billion, according to the Manhattan Institute. The rules will hit Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia — states that voted for Obama — especially hard. Think they might have liked to know that before voting?

• Budget: Obama promised a "balanced" approach to taxes and spending. But data from the CBO and OMB show spending will surge 55% over the next 10 years under Obama — nearly $2 trillion in added spending — swamping Obama's promised "cuts" of $880 billion.

• Taxes: Remember how Obama and his Democratic surrogates taunted Republicans repeatedly, saying they wanted to raise taxes only on "millionaires and billionaires" while cutting taxes for the middle class?
When Republicans tried to do just that, Obama said no thanks. In fact, he has major tax hikes in store for middle-class Americans — starting with ObamaCare's 18 or so new taxes, and ending with the admission of key Democrats such as former presidential candidate Howard Dean that taxes on everyone must rise dramatically to pay for the Democrats' spending orgy.

Benghazi: The White House described the early- September attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as a reaction to an anti-Muslim film clip that appeared on the Internet.
In recent weeks, we've found that the film played no role at all — and that Obama and his national security staff did nothing to save the lives of those under attack, even though they knew the attack was ongoing.

• War On Terror: Obama claimed the war against al-Qaida was basically over. Now we find out that isn't true. Governments friendly to al-Qaida, if not its aims, have taken over in Libya and Egypt. Syria may be next.
For those who think the fight's done, think again. Quietly, Obama is sending troops back to Iraq to help stabilize the country. And he plans to send Army teams to as many as 35 countries in Africa to battle growing terrorist threats — mainly from al-Qaida.
So were Americans duped? Sure. They were told to believe one thing only to discover right after the election reality was something else.
But with another four years of hope and change, you can be sure of one thing: Americans have many more "surprises" in store.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Monday, December 24, 2012



In the United States, over 30,000 people are killed every year in motor vehicle crashes.  That is my reason for proposing the assault vehicle ban.   An assault vehicle is any vehicle that is capable of exceeding 25MPH.  NOTE: In the majority of traffic fatalities, one or more vehicles were exceeding 25MPH.

Why, other than saving 30,000 lives every year, do we need such a ban?  There are many reasons but I will point out only a couple of the most important ones. 

First, nowhere in the constitution does it say that anyone has the “right” to own a motor vehicle.  Obviously the founding fathers never intended us to exceed 25MPH.

Secondly, no one really needs a vehicle that will exceed 25MPH except the military and the police.

Such a ban will encourage more people to either walk or ride a bicycle, improving the overall health of the country. 

It would also reduce harmful emissions and conserve fossil fuels.

I know the “National Hot Rod Association”, sports car clubs, motorcycle clubs, and NASCAR fans will all oppose this ban.  That is the reason I am asking you to join me and write or call your Congressman and ask them to please ban all assault vehicles.




Why is he not in jail?

David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law On National TV

Why is he not in jail?

You know very well, if he were a “gun rights activist” he would have been arrested.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Invincible Ignorance


By Thomas Sowell - December 18, 2012

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

School violence prevention programs

Before Connecticut tragedy, the administration eliminated emergency preparedness program, let school violence prevention programs lapse.  Why is the news media not mentioning this?

Politicians across the country are vowing to do more to prevent school shooting tragedies like the one that unfolded Friday in Newtown, Conn. But over the last few years, the Obama administration and Congress allowed funding for several school safety initiatives to lapse.

Beneath the expressions of grief, sorrow and disbelief over the Connecticut school massacre lies an uneasy truth in Washington: over the last few years the Obama administration and Congress quietly let federal funding for several key school security programs lapse in the name of budget savings.

Government officials told the Washington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren't renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.
Meanwhile, the administration eliminated funding in 2011-12 for a separate Education Department program that gave money to schools to prepare for mass tragedies, the officials said.

A nationally recognized school security expert said those funds had been critical for years in helping schools continue to enhance protections against growing threats of violence. But they simply dried up with little notice as the Columbine and Virginia Tech school shooting tragedies faded from memory and many Americans and political leaders had their attentions diverted to elections, a weak economy and overseas dramas.

 “I was baffled to see funds and programs cut in these areas,” said Kenneth Trump, the president of the National School Safety and Security Services firm that helps school districts and policymakers improve protections for teachers and students. “Our political and policy leaders need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk about being concerned about school safety.

“We have roller coaster public awareness, public policy, and public funding when it comes to school safety. The question isn't whether school safety is a priority today and tomorrow,” Trump added. “The question is whether it will be a priority years down the road when there isn't a crisis in the headlines.”
Leaders in both parties in Washington on Friday expressed remorse and disbelief in the tragedy in the tiny suburban Connecticut town of Newtown, where a single 20-year-old gunman walked into the school where his mother taught and killed 20 children and six others before turning the gun on himself.

"Our hearts are broken today," President Barack Obama said, wiping a tear from his eyes as he reacted to the tragedy. "As a country we have been through this too many times.

"These neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics," the president added.

But last year, his administration took a less muted tone as it submitted its 2012 Education Department budget [2] to Congress that eliminated the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) funding, which for years provided between $20 million and $30 million in annual grants to help schools create emergency and crisis preparation and prevention plans for tragedies just like the one that unfolded Friday.

The Education Department’s Web site says it last made REMS grants [3] in 2011.

The funding was cut off even though the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, warned in 2007 that many “many school district officials said that they experience challenges in planning for emergencies due to a lack of equipment, training for staff, and expertise and some school districts face difficulties in communicating and coordinating with first responders and parents.”

Likewise, the Justice Department over the last 12 years distributed nearly $1 billion in funding to help schools hire police resource officers, install metal detectors and take other countermeasures to prevent tragedies like the Columbine massacre.

The town of Newtown, Conn., in fact, took advantage of one of these programs in 2000 when it got $125,000 in funds  from the COPS in Schools program, Justice Department records show.

But Justice Department officials said the key programs that provided money directly to schools in the aftermath of Columbine have been phased out as of 2012, the last after the 2011 budget year.

For instance, the Secure Our Schools program provided more than $110 million in funding to law enforcement agencies to partner with schools for the purchase of crime prevention equipment, staff and student training between 2002 and 2011, officials said. It was ended this year.

Likewise, the School Safety Initiative provided more than $53 million between 1998 and 2010 in grants to help state and local agencies with delinquency prevention, community planning and development, and school safety resources – all aimed at preventing violence. The program ended in 2011.

Justice Department spokesman Corey Ray said Friday night that the SSI and SOS programs had been funded primarily by congressional earmarks for the last decade and the administration did not seek additional funding to continue the efforts after lawmakers essentially banned most earmarks in 2010.
“They were funded through congressionally designated funding (earmarks). They ended in 2010 or 2011 when that process of funding ceased,” he said.

The biggest funding program for school violence was the COPS in Schools program, which Ray said provided $811 millions to communities to hire resource officers who worked inside the schools. The targeted funding for schools was ended in 2005 but police are still allowed to apply for broader police hiring money from the general COPS program and then use it to hire school resource officers if they want, Ray said.

“As the economy changed, we had agencies asking for all types of positions including school resource officers,” Ray explained. “So we gave our main hiring program the flexibility to include SROs and other positions. So no COPS In Schools, but still some options to hire for those positions.”
Some liberal groups have increasingly voiced concerns about the increased spending on police and security at schools. For instance, the Justice Policy Institute, a think tank, wrote a report in 2011 entitled "Education Under Arrest" that concluded that "schools do not need school resource officers to be safe."

White House officials did not return repeated calls and emails Friday night seeking comment on the administration's rationale for letting the programs lapse.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

America’s Changing Values

What exactly are “values” anyway?  Simply put—“values” are the beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)   For example: One can be for or against abortion, for or against same sex marriage, for or against socialism, etc.

Values are the deep-seated beliefs that people, institutions, and societies share.

“A value is a belief, a mission, or a philosophy that is meaningful to one.  Whether we are consciously aware of them or not, every individual has a core set of personal values. Values can range from the commonplace, such as the belief in hard work, self-reliance, and punctuality, to the more psychological, such as concern for others, trust, and harmony of purpose.

Values actually define who or what an individual, business, or society really is.  However, for better or for worse, it is apparent that values are changing, so we need to inquire of ourselves if our own values have changed.  Have yours?  Have mine?

As I Look back on the more than seven decades of my life, the most striking change of all—to me—is the change in values that has taken place in America.

There was a time in America when rugged individualism, for instance, was a value, a core value, upon which no price could be placed.  Not so today!  An individualist, rugged or not, is today an unwelcome component in a group, an organization, a political party, and most certainly in a religious denomination.  An individualist today is truly “a square peg in a round hole.”

America has, over the past 60 years, or so, morphed into something of a “collectivist” society.  I think this change sprang from the socialist inspired student movements of the 1960s, the environmental and feminist movements, and the peace and anti-nuclear movements of the 1980s.  And, of course the hippy drug movement of the Viet Nam war years.  Each movement acted to move us to a collectivist society.   Everything was a group action conceived by group-think.  Individualism was suppressed.

Change is usually so gradual it goes, for the most part, unnoticed by most people.  Allow me to site an example; back many years ago, when I was in the military, I left the country in January of 1960.  I was very much out of touch with society for the next four years.  Oh yes, I listened to the news several times a week but I wasn’t actually a part of the American society.  I could not actually see and feel the gradually changes that were happening.

When I returned home as a civilian in 1964, I was shocked at the changes that had taken place while I was away.  I think perhaps that experience made me more aware, more conscious of the gradual changes now happening around me day to day.
America’s political parties today have become nothing more than a collection of special interest groups.   If you add water to soup, you have more soup, but the soup loses its flavor and strength, and if you keep adding water, it loses more flavor and strength, and soon it is unpalatable.   Simply put, we find ourselves with political parties that are confused, without a sense of direction, and quite often impotent.

There was a time, when the values of America were clear and simple:  hard work, personal responsibility, family unity, spiritual strength, patriotism, and believe it or not—RESPECT for others.
Looking at that list above, one can be forgiven if it seems foreign and alien to what passes for America’s values today.  There is little resemblance to free-wheeling, pleasure seeking, good time charley values of a declining country in the throes of terminal socialism.

When I witnessed the nation wide show of support for Chick-Fil-a this summer, it instilled in me more hope for the future of this country than I have felt in many years.  That hope quickly faded however as I watched the election returns come in on election night.

Our young can be forgiven for believing they are truly free.  I suppose they can even be forgiven their lack of values and, to some extent, their psychopathic attitudes and behavior.  From their earliest days in the American public education system they have been indoctrinated and trained to become nothing more than useful idiots.  At that one thing—they absolutely excel.

They don’t know or they don’t care that government handouts are not truly free.  They don’t seem to understand that the fictitious “free” ride eventually ends, that the money eventually runs out if half the people take without contributing.  They don’t seem to understand that if you do not have a strong military freedom is eventually taken from you.

Positive proof of America’s changing, or maybe I should say deteriorating values, is all the shootings in recent years.  The shooter or shooters are almost always young males with no real motive.  Shootings get a lot of media coverage, as well they should and you can always count on the lift wing media to try to blame the lack of strong gun control laws.

Guns were readily available years ago when I was a kid.  Young boys, myself included, use to go rabbit hunting a lot back then, (yes, we actually ate those cute little bunnies) but no one ever even thought about shooting a person.  These shootings have nothing to do with “gun laws”.  They have everything to do with the growing lawlessness of the Nation’s youth. 

I’m pretty sure the popular video games for kids these days like this one don’t help develop their values.
The news media in this country are very selective in what crimes they cover.  That is not an accident, it is by design. The media is intentionally overlooking, if not suppressing, the growing incidences of youth mob violence, particularly in cases of black-on-white crime.

Gangs like the 44th Street Crew in Southeast Washington, D.C., are becoming more prevalent and more dangerous. They and others are terrorizing riders of the Metro, and posting it on YouTube for all to see.

This is not just another isolated incident.   According to the Website UnsuckDCMetro (a blog dedicated to covering Metro events), reports of violence rarely make it to The Washington Post, even though they are occurring and have been for some time.  One anonymous reader posted his experience in witnessing a group of six to eight teenagers assaulting a lone teenage girl.  He said he called 911; less than a minute later, another girl was being assaulted.  Other reports are here, here and here.

Thomas Sowell writes that there is an uncensored race war in America and that incidents that are occurring across the country are being ignored or suppressed.

Walter E. Williams writes that in addition to a growing number of black-on-white incidents, there are also an increasing number of black-on-Asian attacks, and black on black crime.

When you have a socialist controlled education system, ignorant young people are the results, but when you have a press that is aligned with the government, an ignorant population is the result.

How do we reclaim our lost values?   I could attempt to bedazzle you with reams of wordage and rhetoric but the honest truth is—I simply don’t know.  One thing I am fairly certain of however is that it will require several generations just to get back to square one.  You may as well get prepared for what is yet to come by getting yourself a gun, learning to use it, and then get a carry permit.

If this blog offends anyone, I am truly sorry.  I know the truth sometimes hurts.  


In the same week as the school shooting there was a well publicized mall shooting.  It is also being used to justify more laws attacking all the law abiding gun owners who did NOT go into a mall or school and shoot it up. That week or any other.

What most of our news media mysteriously forget to mention is that one law abiding citizen DID go into the mall that day, and stopped the carnage dead in it tracks.

How can we have a rational discussion about self defense with a media that doesn’t tell the whole story?