Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Government Disparate Treatments of Citizens

Isn't it ironic that our wonderful government sees nothing wrong with requiring gun owners to go through background checks, yet the very same bunch of goofballs say that having employers run investigations on those applying for jobs is discriminatory. Either finding out someone's history is either great or an invasion of his/her privacy.  So much for consistency!

The EEOC says that these checks are racist, yet the average person (white, black, brown, yellow or red) can be subjected to the same imposition without any hesitation as they want to purchase a legal product. Ironic or moronic? Government at its best!

Conservative Tom

EEOC: Background Checks Are Racist

February 22, 2013 by  
EEOC: Background Checks Are Racist
The Administration of Barack Obama has widely emphasized the need for criminal background checks to be performed on anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm. Meanwhile, officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are threatening lawsuits against some companies that perform background checks on potential employees because they have a disparate impact on minorities.
According to the EEOC’s own enforcement guide for criminal background checks, they’re racist because they can lead to: “(1) disparate treatment (e.g., intentionally treating a white job applicant with a criminal conviction differently than a minority job applicant); or (2) disparate impact (e.g., a neutral policy of excluding job applicants with criminal histories, but such policy disproportionately screens out certain racial or ethnic groups).”
EEOC officials contend that to avoid being sued for civil rights violations for not hiring an applicant with a criminal history, an employer’s policy or practice of excluding applicants based upon criminal history must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the agency that makes sure companies doing business with the Federal government adhere to affirmative action mandates, announced earlier this month:
OFCCP stated it is aware of contractors posting job announcements that categorically exclude applicants with arrest or conviction records or require applicants to have a “clean” criminal record.  OFCCP believes these practices likely violate federal discrimination laws.
Also of note, OFCCP follows EEOC’s recommendation that employers not ask about criminal convictions on job applications.  Further, OFCCP suggests that if an employer asks about an individual’s criminal history at any point during the application process, the employer limit the inquiry to convictions that are related to the job in question and are consistent with business necessity.
In the Nation’s past, from the time slavery was abolished until the Jim Crow South became a relic, the gun-control laws that were the harshest were those that were levied against blacks. If the EEOC feels background checks are so racist that companies should hire people without the benefit of knowing whether the new employee is a convicted felon or habitual misdemeanor offender, should the same logic apply to encouraging across-the-board background checks for firearm purchases? Of course, maybe it doesn’t matter, gun control was born of racism in the United States.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Arguments For Sequestration

We haven't made up our mind if sequestration is good or bad and we believe a majority of Americans have not decided either. So as a public service, we are including an article from Chip Wood. He is in favor of the slash and burn method verses doing nothing. 

Let us know what you think.

Conservative Tom

Let’s Call Obama’s Bluff

February 22, 2013 by  
Let’s Call Obama’s Bluff
The Chicken Littles in Washington are sure having conniptions over the thought of having to make some spending cuts, aren’t they?
“Sequestration” has become the new scare word, with the White House and its allies using language like “doomsday,” “deeply destructive,” “irresponsible” and “catastrophic.”
President Barack Obama sounded the alarm over sequestration in his State of the Unionspeech. “These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts,” he declared, “… would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.”
Pardon me while I inject a little reality into this picture.
First of all, there is nothing “sudden” about this so-called crisis. It’s been staring us in the face for the past 18 months. And it was the White House, not Republicans in Congress, who first came up with the idea.
Back in the summer of 2011, Obama’s team made the proposal for mandatory spending cuts as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations. The Administration insisted that the cuts be divided between defense spending and domestic programs, no doubt assuming that the Republicans would never permit hundreds of billions of dollars to be removed from the Pentagon’s budget.
So far, Obama’s team has lost that bet. It seems that the Republicans who control the House of Representatives believe that sequestration is the only way to force some spending cuts on the Federal behemoth, so they are willing to let it happen.
I couldn’t agree with them more. During the last big tax-cut battle, doing nothing meant raising taxes for everyone. The Republicans got what they thought was the best possible compromise in the New Year’s Day fiscal cliff deal. The bargain retained the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for all but families earning $450,000 a year or more.
But today, doing nothing means that some spending cuts will be enacted. Since a majority of Congress seems to be incapable of agreeing on any plan to cut spending, how else is it going to happen?
After all, Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi all proclaim that we don’t have a spending problem in this country. What’s even more amazing is that they can say it with a straight face — and without their noses growing several inches longer.
That’s why I urge Republicans to call Obama’s bluff. Let sequestration begin on March 1. Ignore the dire threats and howls of outrage. Instead, let’s take the first small step toward living within our means.
That said, I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer, the popular FOX News commentator, who had this to say:
Of course, the sequester is terrible policy. The domestic cuts will be crude and the Pentagon cuts damaging. This is why the Republican House has twice passed bills offering more rationally allocated cuts. (They curb, for example, entitlement spending as well.)
Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing. Nor has the president — until his Tuesday plea.
Well, it wasn’t so much a plea as it was a threat. Of course, the powers that be will do everything they can to make the consequences of sequestration seem truly dreadful. We’ll hear horror story after horror story about vital services being slashed. Don’t believe a word of it, folks. That’s just how the game is played. Before you buy into all of the bullhockey about all of the horrors that will ensue, please consider a few facts.
We are talking about minuscule reductions in the Federal budget. The deal is supposed to reduce Federal spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. But thanks to the compromise Congress made last month to raise the debt ceiling, the actual cuts this year will be just $85 billion. And they may be even lower than that trivial amount. Given a Federal budget this year of $3.6 trillion, we’re talking about a measly 2.36 percent reduction.
Guess what? Even if every nickel of those cuts takes place, the Federal behemoth will still spend more money this year than it did last year. And please keep in mind that even with the $600 billion in tax increases Obama got last month, we will still need to borrow over $1 trillion this year so Uncle Sam can keep writing all of those checks.
While the nation’s growth rate has been stagnant, spending by governments at all levels has increased dramatically from $4.9 trillion in 2007 to $6.2 trillion in 2012, a jump of 26.5% which is driven entirely by the federal government as it has increased its spending by nearly 41% over this period. This has resulted in the total national debt rising from $9.2 trillion at the beginning of January 2008 to $16.45 trillion as of today. (a staggering 79% increase).
By the way, it isn’t just the “poor” who have reaped the benefits of all this increased spending, reports Gary D. Halbert. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, by 2011 (the last year for which numbers were available), the average total compensation for Federal government employees was $126,200. By comparison, the average total compensation for workers in the private sector was less than half that amount.
That’s right; while government employees on average were pulling in $126,200 a year, the average free-enterprise employee earned just $62,100.
And here’s another statistic I found even more shocking. From 2007 until 2011, the average net worth of all American households fell by nearly 40 percent. Look at that number again. It’s a four followed by a zero. There’s no decimal point in there.
Most of that horrendous decline was due to the devastating collapse in home prices. But the average household income is also down sharply, falling from $54,489 in 2007 to $50,054 in January 2012. We’re getting poorer fast, folks.
The bottom line is that the past four years of Obama’s Presidency have marked the worst period of economic growth for this country since the beginning of the Great Depression. Fewer of us are working (some 3 million fewer than when Obama took office). We’re earning less, saving less and worth less.
Faced with this record of economic disaster, the Democrats want to do more of what’s gotten us in this mess in the first place. They want to spend more, borrow more and tax more.
I’m in favor of doing anything that’s legal, moral and ethical to slow them down. As far as I can see, the sequestration, while far from ideal, qualifies on all three. So I say, bring it on.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
–Chip Wood

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Columbine Survivor--Gun Control Bad

No one can speak to the effect of being a gun shot victim more than one who has gone through that experience. Evan Todd, a survivor of Columbine recently wrote a letter to President Obama and eloquently told the President that he was on the wrong side of the gun control issue.

We could not agree more. Gun control will only effect law abiding citizens who responsibly own and use guns, it will not effect those who have terror, criminality, theft or murder in their minds. They will find a way to do their deed without regard to the laws.

Conservative Tom


Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.
He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlaze interviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.
The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.” Additionally, he says his belief that assault weapons bans are ineffective and argues that the first law did little to stop violence when it was in effect from 1994 until 2004; he cites Columbine as a prime example.
“It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”
Columbine Survivor Even Todd Rejects Obamas Gun Control Initiatives in Open Letter
President Barack Obama uses a cell phone to call supporters during a visit to a local campaign office, Monday, Oct. 1, 2012 in Henderson, Nev. Credit: AP
Of particular note in the letter is the survivor’s insistence that Obama’s proposed regulations impede the rights of Americans and endanger them by capping magazine sizes and restricting the types of guns that are available to law-abiding citizens.
“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?,” he asks the president in the text. “Whose side are you on?”
Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below.
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops —  because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

Sequestration False Choices

Need we say anything else?

Conservative Tom

Sequestration Ponzi Scheme

February 21, 2013 by  

Don’t panic about the so-called “sequestration.” It’s just another President Barack Obama scam. There are many more things to panic about that are more important than sequestration. The economy is in free fall. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Wal-Mart calls its sales to start 2013 “a total disaster.”
Now those are things to panic about.
But, hey, the President is on the job. Our fearless leader, Obama, is just back from a swing State (you know, the kind of place where you work on your golf swing). He was consulting on the economy with Tiger Woods and Butch Harmon, while Michelle Obama was playing in Aspen, Colo. You wouldn’t accept this storyline if it was a fictional movie script. Too unrealistic. This country under Obama is becoming one big scam. A Ponzi scheme. Obama is the guy running the Ponzi, playing the role of Bernie Madoff. But the mainstream media are certainly playing the role of his accomplice.
Exhibit A is the so-called “sequestration.” It was the Obama Administration that gave us sequestration. Even Bob Woodward, the famous investigative journalist, said: “The sequester was Obama’s idea.”
Now Obama gets back from his tough golf weekend with Tiger and claims sequestration is the end of the world. Funny, Obama never mentioned it was his idea. He never mentioned that the specific Obama lackey who created the idea was Jack Lew, who, Obama has just nominated to become Treasury Secretary.
That’s right: Sequestration is such a bad idea, causing such an economic crisis, that Obama is rewarding the guy who thought it up by putting him in charge of the entire U.S. economy. Where are the screaming headlines in the mainstream media pointing out that Obama is the world’s biggest hypocrite?
To make this “Saturday Night Live” skit even funnier, Obama — the man of the working people, the man of the middle class — picked a tax cheat, Tim Geithner, as his first-term Treasury Secretary. Then for his second term he picked Lew, who invests his money in a Cayman Islands fund housed in the building that Obama has called “the largest tax scam in the world.”
With guys like that in charge of the economy and our tax system, it sure sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
Obama also claimed that the sequestration cuts will cause job losses among police officers, firefighters and teachers. Why aren’t the media pointing out that police officers, firefighters and teachers are hired on the local and State level. Oops, Obama is caught in another fabrication. It’s all part of the big scam that is the Obama economy.
And, by the way, aren’t there other government employees besides police officers, firefighters and teachers? Shouldn’t the media point out that to bring up only those three classes of employees is complete deception, like a con man selling his con?
Did you know the average government janitor is paid $600,000 more over his lifetime than a janitor working in the private sector?
Why doesn’t Obama mention janitors when we talk about cutting government spending? It’s because the image of a government janitor or meat inspector would not bring tears to voters’ eyes. It wouldn’t sell his Ponzi scheme. The media say nothing.
Why don’t the media point out that Obama spent us into bankruptcy by adding almost $6 trillion to the national debt in only four years? If anyone loses his job, it’s not because of the minuscule $85 billion sequestration. That’s a spit in the ocean. It’s because of the $6 trillion of reckless spending over the past four years. Obama is the one to blame for people losing their jobs. Why don’t the media point that out? Their silence makes them accomplices in the Ponzi scheme.
Why aren’t they pointing out that the economy is in shambles, gas prices have risen 32 days in a row, Wal-Mart executives are calling sales to start the year “a total disaster”  – that’s a quote — while Obama, a Democrat who supposedly cares about poor people and working-class people, golfs with Tiger Woods in Florida, works on his golf swing with Butch Harmon and parties at billion-dollar resorts on Valentine’s weekend with the world’s most notorious womanizer, with the press denied access and with his wife on a separate vacation in Aspen? Do you think the media would be silent about all this if the Presidential couple partying in Florida and Aspen were Ronald and Nancy Reagan?
The reality is we have an economic crisis bordering on a total collapse because of specific Obama policies. He spends too much. He taxes too much. He wastes our money on green energy. It isn’t working. The chickens are coming home to roost. The first quarter is “a total disaster” because Obama raised income taxes on the rich and payroll taxes on the middle class. When you tax people, they have less money to spend.
At the same time, everyone is getting hit with rocketing gas prices while Obama wastes your money on solar energy scams, on wind energy scams, on electric cars that no one wants to buy and on fraudulent biofuel standards that are impossible to obtain. Obama declares millions of acres of oil-rich lands off-limits to drilling. His Environmental Protection Agency policies drive coal out of business. And we wonder why gas and energy prices are skyrocketing?
The economy is in meltdown because of Obama’s policies. In response, he spends his weekends consulting with Tiger Woods and Butch Harmon. Yet the media say nothing. It’s just another day in Obamageddon.
The sequestration isn’t the threat, folks. The greatest threat to the future of America is Obama.

Police Targets--Elderly, Kids, Pregnant Women

What is going on in this country. Police now can train on targets showing pregnant women, children and elderly people? This is nuts!

The company behind this is Law Enforcement Targets Inc., their website is:  Check it out and then let us know if you think police should be shooting at anything that might have a gun.

Of course, the LA police did and you see how bad shots they are. It might be safer being in front of a police officer with his gun pointed AT you instead of off to the side! Bystanders are in real danger!

This is really big news world wide. Russia Today has an article on it. The whole world is laughing at us.  

When a country is coming to an end, the police and government turn against the people. History is replete with examples of this occurring. America will be just the latest in a sad litany of disasters.

For example, in recent days we have seen a gun control bill proposed in Washington State with an "home inspection" clause in the legislation. Yes, the offending clause was removed but only after there was a scream around the country and the legislators made lame statements about not reading the bill before submitting it. Do they really think we are that stupid to not see through their smoke screen? Yup, otherwise they would not have proposed it!

These targets are a way to desensitize police to shooting women, kids and elders.  Once they can do it in practice, the chance of them doing it on the street is much easier.  If they come for our weapons, it is easier to shoot gun owners who might pull their gun in their own defense!

Distressing is the only word we can use!

Conservative Tom

P.S.  The government in the name of Homeland Security has purchased over a million dollars of this company's products. Well, that goes along with the 1.6 billion bullets they have purchased.  We are beginning to see a trend here, do you?

Shooting Children, Pregnant Women And Elderly People Should Require Hesitation

February 21, 2013 by  
Police officers in the field face an array of threats to their safety on a daily basis; sometimes these threats warrant the use of deadly force against a suspect. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet the civilian public has learned in recent years that many officers throughout the Nation are quick to abuse power or jump the gun, so to speak, in using deadly force with alarming frequency.
Reports flooded the Internet yesterday about a series of paper targets produced by Law Enforcement Targets Inc. that depict non-traditional threats that law enforcement officers may encounter in the field. Below are images of the company’s targets included in the series “No More Hesitation”:
The company has secured more than $5 million in Federal money, mostly from the Department of Defense ($3,124,371) and the Department of Homeland Security ($1,913,489). The company also does business with the Department of Energy ($150,877), the Department of State ($133,812) and the Department of Veterans Affairs ($51,822).
The Moral Lib­eral’s senior edi­tor, T.F. Stern, a retired police offi­cer, penned a column pointing out that the “No More Hesitation” targets must exist for a reason and that the reason likely amounts to demand, as more law enforcement agencies adopt the mantra that anyone who isn’t a cop is a threat.
Stern laments:
There’s something wrong, seriously wrong here.  If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home…then what kind of society have we become?  How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?…
… Odd as it may sound coming from an old retired cop, if police recognition skills, the red flags that alert to danger were delayed for a moment, so be it; I’d rather get shot than develop the attitude that all or even most of my neighbors were a constant threat.
Stern’s mention of reaction time was probably in reference to a statement issued by Law Enforcement Targets Inc. to Reason, the publication that first broke the story: “This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served.”
The company also confirmed that law enforcement agencies have requested “No More Hesitation” targets specifically in the past.
While it is reasonable to believe that, over the course of a career, a police officer could encounter a pregnant shooter in a nursery or a boy younger than 10 with a weapon, it isn’t highly likely.
A report entitled “A Critical Analysis of Police Shootings Under Ambiguous Circumstances”published by The Police Policy Studies Council in 2008 gives some insight to the “critical microbehavioral issues that seem to have a significant cumulative effect on an officer’s decision to employ deadly force.” One interesting, and predictable, caveat in the report is that police often decide whether to shoot based upon visual characteristics of a suspect:
Officers/deputies are more likely to shoot when the subject is young (rather than old), in punk dress (rather than business dress)…
So, training officers to identify children, the elderly and pregnant women in the same threat category as young men in punk garb could have an impact on their willingness to open fire on members of the former group whether armed or not.
In a study conducted as part of the report, which involved using a video screen portraying actors — either armed or unarmed — turning in an officer’s direction, it is revealed why shaving reaction time almost to the point of “shoot first, ask questions later” can be a bad idea:
…[S]ince the officer’s decision to fire at the suspect predates the subject being shot .25 seconds or more, the officer can (and easily does) shoot the suspect as he/she is raising his/her hands into a “surrender” position. This was a frequent and somewhat unanticipated outcome in many of the shootings that involved “unarmed” suspects; suspects getting shot while “surrendering.” The officer typically has 1/3 of a second or less (from a critical juncture in each scenario) to decide whether or not to employ deadly force, and then to apply that force, before he/she risks being “shot.”
The results of the study point out what is already common knowledge: Regardless of an officer’s oath to “serve and protect,” the basic human instinct of self-preservation takes precedence in the face of a perceived threat.
The dangers faced by officers in the field should not be discounted, nor, though, should common sense in the name of faster draw time. Take, for instance, the overwhelming number of recent reports of educators throughout the Nation becoming shrieking alarmists at the sight of elementary-school students having pretend shootouts or bringing toy guns (even Hello Kitty bubble guns) to school in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting.
What happens if school officials call police the next time they suspect a child of having a toy gun? What happens if the child is wearing a “punk” T-shirt and acting defiant? And what happens if an officer trained to shoot a child without hesitation arrives on scene?
It may sound like a series of ridiculous considerations. But many people would likely think it ridiculous for officers to need to train with targets portraying pregnant women, children and elderly people in the first place.

Scary Thoughts About America's Future

Could we be seeing the last days of the American experiment? Could foreign countries be plotting our destruction? Could our leaders all be involved?  All of these questions are important to consider. If even one is real, we are in big trouble. In the following post by Douglas J. Hagmann, the author provides a view of the world and the United States that pulls together the threads that we have been seeing over the past couple years.

Most of us cannot understand why the Department of Homeland Security needs 1.5 billion bullets for example. This much ammo just does not make sense unless there is a plan to use it.  

We have heard of FEMA camps and even seen pictures of these purported sites. Why would our government be spending money and not allowing inquiring eyes to see inside?

When asked by Benghazi, former Secretary of State blows back by saying in essence that four Americans are dead, who cares what happened before? Huh? We spent years and millions on special investigations into Iran Contra, yet our former First Lady cannot tell us the truth?

Too many questions and NO answers to them.  We need answers and whether Mr. Hagmann has it right, we do not know, however, don't we deserve to know. Or as Jack Nickolson's character in a "A Few Good Men" said "You can't handle the truth." Maybe Americans can't handle the truth. If so, America is in deep trouble.

Conservative Tom

America over a barrel

19 February 2013: America finds itself “over a barrel” (perhaps literally), and at the precipice of financial Armageddon due to the coming collapse of the U.S. dollar.  It is most important for people to understand that our financial destruction has been orchestrated for a generation or more, and has been intentionally accelerated over the last two decades to complete a specific agenda. In order to survive what is coming, it is imperative to understand that agenda, who and what is behind it, and the motive. The bigger picture will connect some very important dots.

All is well in the land of Oz
America is in serious financial trouble, and events on the immediate horizon will forever change our lifestyle. However, if you are like me, trying to convince your friends at work, your neighbors, or perhaps even your spouse that this is true is a formidable (if not impossible) task.  They might counter your warnings by pointing to the people walking out of retail stores with big ticket items, or if they are trying to appear more astute, cite the positive gains in the stock market while snickering at you for buying silver at nearly $50 per ounce, while it now hovers at $30 per ounce. You might have even been called a doomsayer or conspiracy nut for buying storable food or extra items for your pantry. However (if their ego permits it), these will be the same people who will turn to you for answers and practical advice when the financial house of cards falls to the floor.
What people are seeing is not reality, but their perception of reality as a result of the conditioning and brainwashing by our elected leaders and the complicit corporate media. The American public has been conditioned and brainwashed en masse into believing a lie.
It is an accepted mantra that the bigger the lie, the more readily people will believe it. That is the case in which we find ourselves today. The entire world (especially Americans and the West) is in for a “crude awakening.” In our current state, perception is not reality. We are being subjected to lie upon lie that feeds our normalcy bias. “Things will never get as bad as you say, at least not here in America,” is a common statement that you might be hearing. Others will argue that intervention by our government will prevent any significant financial disaster. They don’t understand that it is the elements within our own government (or elements working in conjunction with our elected leaders) who are actually responsible for the financial crisis that we will soon face.
What is the truth?
The truth is that America is a “captured operation.” It has been captured from within. The Democrat-Republican, right-left paradigm is nothing more than an erroneous perception that permits the illusion of dueling agendas, when, in fact, there is only one. For example, how else would one explain the continuity of agenda between George W. Bush and Barack Obama?
If one accepts the fact that America is a captured operation, then it would be reasonable to ask, “Captured by who or what?” And, “What is the end-game objective of those controlling the puppet strings? Who are the puppet masters?”
To gain insight and answer these questions, it is logical to follow the investigative adage, “follow the money,” and to understand that “he who owns the gold makes the rules.” To gain further understanding of our precarious position, it is also important to have a basic understanding of the U.S. dollar.
Since the dollar was taken off the gold standard on August 15, 1971 by then-President Richard Nixon, many believe that it is not backed by anything of value and is nothing more than a promise on a piece of paper. Technically, that would appear to be true. But in reality, the current stability of the U.S. dollar is backed by oil, or the promise of the free and unrestricted access to the flow of oil.
There is a lot of history about our economic system that should be known and understood, including the creation of the privately owned cartel of central banks that was made legal under the Federal Reserve Act and is now chaired by Ben Bernanke. That history, however, would be better served by a more extensive column at another time. Currently at issue is how things are about to play out for the average Americans who are straddled by a growing and oppressive debt, to the point that we have shamelessly permitted our own children, and the future generations of America, to be sold into financial slavery.
As Americans, we are over a barrel. If you look closely at the fine print on that barrel, you will see that the barrel is fully owned by the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We are the puppets of the Saudis, lock, stock and barrel. But there is more.
Confluence of events
If you find it difficult to accept that we are operating as a “branch office” of the Saudis, then consider our current financial and geopolitical situation, and work backward. Consider the meteoric rise to power by Barack Hussein Obama. Do you really believe that he rose to power on the merits of his political career as a junior senator from Illinois? What about the funding his campaign received from foreign donations, that was noted as an anomaly, yet not audited to the point of precise origin. Could not much of that money be traced to Saudi Arabia, or to specific elements acting on their behalf?
How about Obama’s education, including (but not limited to) his acceptance into Harvard? Who footed the bill? A bit of investigative research points to funding that originated from a very wealthy Saudi prince. But at what cost, or with what strings?
There are many more examples of his Saudi ties, and his capitulation to their agenda of a pan-Islamic state via the Muslim Brotherhood. These are  available to anyone who is willing to perform the research.
The most significant bit of evidence of all, however, relates to Obama’s actions as the President of the United States, especially in one specific event: Benghazi.
Although one has to look no further than his war against developing a domestic oil drilling and refining program, the most blatant evidence of Saudi control can be found in his actions related to the September 11, 2012 murderous attacks in Benghazi. It is here that the curtain shielding the truth is pulled back, and some very important pieces of evidence become exposed. The events that took place in Benghazi reveal that the United States is providing the military muscle, the sweat and blood of our men and women in and out of uniform, to accomplish the objectives of the Saudis. It was a military extension of the much celebrated Arab Spring, which (contrary to media accounts) is a Saudi plan of expansion.
It is Benghazi that provides a glimpse into the truth, and is the reason that the Obama regime has viciously fought against any attempts at getting to the truth. Truth will reveal that America, to further the agenda of the Saudis, was involved in the largest arms supplying operation in history. We were providing the anti-Assad rebels with the arms and technical assistance to overthrow Assad, destabilize Syria, and (like Egypt) install a puppet of the Muslim Brotherhood. For detailed information on Benghazi, I would urge readers to review my investigative series published on this site.
At this point, you might ask what this has to do with our domestic financial situation and the coming collapse of the dollar. Again, we must look at the larger picture.
What is the end-game scenario?
What everyone has been witnessing, but failing to understand, is a geopolitical chess game being played by the globalist power brokers, or the international central bankers. Saudi Arabia is using the assets of the U.S. military, and building their pan-Islamic Kingdom on the blood and tears of our men and women. The Saudis are also instruments of the globalists, who are working overtime to implement a global currency and a world power structure.
This is the brainchild of decades and generations of planning by an elite group of people who have the money and power to restructure the world. They are the members of the various societies no one wants to talk about, or no one wants to admit exist. Their seat of power is located in a single square mile in London. They control the wealth of the globe.
In order for them to be able to complete their plan of global governance, the United States must cease to exist as a Constitutional Republic and a viable military force. Since these elites are unable to do it by military might, they have planned and plotted, for at least a generation, to infiltrate our government with their own. If that sounds too outlandish to accept, then simply look at the many events over the last century through today. Our President is Barack Hussein Obama, a man who has yet to prove his Constitutional eligibility (and no one in Congress is willing to press the issue). We have an impotent Congress, stacked federal courts, and a draconian Homeland Security apparatus that appears to be gearing up for war. Against who?
We are witnessing the end game scenario beginning to play out. An expedient method to collapse the U.S. dollar would be to interrupt (or even threaten to interrupt) the free flow of oil, without having the ability to drill and refine domestically. Since the only commodity holding up the dollar is oil, what would that do to our domestic economy?
Considering that this condition has existed through multiple administrations, does this not indicate some level of complicity by Obama’s predecessors, simply by the continuity of agenda? What about the press? They have been absent and impotent as well, failing to dig deep into these issues. Instead, they provide sound bites, and just enough truth to thinly veil the lies it covers.
A financial collapse would certainly result in a societal collapse, at which point we would see violence across the country within days. Our food supply would be interrupted, and stores would be emptied in hours. Before stability can be restored, many will die. Those who have not been fooled by the agenda of the globalists will personally experience the reason why our domestic security force (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been buying ammunition and weapons, and hardening their assets.
Meanwhile, there is an aggressive push to shred the Constitution and disarm law-abiding American citizens. The obedient, lapdog media is complicit in this as well, redefining the purpose of the Second Amendment to a mind-numbed public.
The confluence of events we are witnessing (from gun control to our foreign policies) is not by accident, but is the result of much planning. To those with discernment, the collapse of the dollar is one part of a larger plan of global governance. The lives lost within America will be collateral damage welcomed by the evil and insidious.
It’s not if, but when.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

A Different View of Large-Capacity Magazines

We mostly hear that "no one needs large capacity magazines unless someone is going on a killing spree."  In some cases that might be right, however, in the following article Bob Livingston makes a valid point to the contrary and we believe it is worth considering.

Another instance of the use of the proper use of "assault weapons" was the LA riots that occurred after the Rodney King verdict. During this insurrection, Korean business people protected their property from the roving gangs with (horror of all horrors) these guns. Had they not had access to them, how much more damage would have happened?  We suspect lots.

No tool is ever totally bad or good. Hammers can pound nails but they can also be used to kill. The same goes for screw drivers. Should we also ban these?

Why are we not talking about the thousands that die due to car accidents and drug abuse? What about the numbers who die from legal medicine abuse? Politicians are ignoring the big numbers and dealing with the minor ones and there is only one reason.  Those in charge want to disarm the American people. There can be no other rationale. It is not about the kids. It is not about Sandy Hook--that was only an excuse for the latest attack on ALL of our rights. 

Don't be fooled, there is a plan and it is not related to "assault weapons", it is about all guns! Once Americans are unarmed, the government can ram anything down our throats and we will have NO way to fight back.  

Just like the flash mobs that run rampant and wipe out stores, the government will do exactly the same thing as they are no different than those who steal for a living.

Be Scared, Be Very Scared.

Conservative Tom

Yes, People ‘Need’ Large-Capacity Magazines

February 7, 2013 by  
Yes, People ‘Need’ Large-Capacity Magazines
Violent, thieving mobs — called flash mobs because they spring up almost instantaneously, loot and ransack a business and disperse within a minute or two — have been seen across the country over the past several years. Not surprisingly, they’ve now made their way into New York City.
Newsstand and convenience store owners in New York say the mobs of 20, 30, 40 or more are hitting their establishments regularly, stealing merchandise, damaging property and injuring customers.
“They assemble, they do whatever it is they’re going to do, and then they disassemble in a matter minutes. By the time somebody recognizes what is happening or is injured, if the police are able to respond, it is slow,” Jon Shane, assistant professor of criminal justice at John Jay College told CBS New York.
Raj Shmara owns a newsstand at Broadway at 55th Street. Shmara said his newsstand has been targeted seven different times by mobs of teens. During an attack just last week, the kids threw a bottle at an employee who had to be hospitalized. Watching a video of the mob attack is frightening. Dozens of youths crawl over one another like a pack of dogs scuffling over one food bowl.
New York business owners are trying to “protect themselves” by installing surveillance cameras because they say they aren’t getting any help from New York police.
And, of course, thanks to the recently passed New York gun control legislation, New York business owners can’t really protect themselves. Scary-looking black semi-automatic personal defense weapons with large magazines are now banned in the city because the State’s government decided no one “needs” a weapon with a large-capacity magazine.
A gun now legal in New York with a magazine holding only seven rounds wouldn’t be sufficient to take out a third of some of those mobs. But a store owner holding an AR-15 with a 30-round mag and another at his side would serve as a great deterrent to a mob of 20, 30 or 40 thugs.

Obama Trip To Israel--Its Meaning?

The Real Meaning of the Obama Visit to Israel and U.S.-Israel Relations in Obama's Second Term

Barry Rubin, Rubin Reports - Israpundit,  February 10th, 2013

The international media is speculating on Obama’s visit scheduled for late March. The argument is that he would not come unless he gets some breakthrough, that is, some Israeli concession, and he wouldn’t leave happy unless he received one.
So what would this concession be? The most likely candidate would be a freeze on constructing building within existing settlements, as Israel gave him three years ago. At that time, despite a ten-month freeze, the Palestinian Authority only came to talks at the last minute, offered nothing, and then quickly demanded another freeze. In other words, Israel did precisely what Obama asked and got nothing in return, either from his government or the Palestinians.
Actually, it is not technically true to say “nothing.” Secretly, the U.S. government promised to accept that Israel could annex “settlement blocs,” (a promise originally made by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush) that is keep the largest existing settlements near the border, in exchange for territorial swaps in a peace agreement, and to continue building in east Jerusalem.
What happened? A few months later, a visiting Vice President Joe Biden threw a tantrum about an announced zoning board decision that at some future point Israel might build in pre-1967 Jordanian-ruled territory. In effect, that was a violation of the agreement.
Then, while not explicitly going back on the settlement bloc agreement without notifying Israel, Obama made a major speech in which he put the emphasis on Israel’s return to the pre-1967 borders (that is, giving up the settlement blocs), though he did leave the door ajar for territorial swaps. That was not breaking the pledge but certainly undermined it.
After doing what Obama wanted and then getting little or nothing in exchange, Israel is now faced with claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never made any concessions to get negotiations going. After going along with Obama, it is now said in the United States that he tried to undermine Obama or didn’t cooperate.
And after the Palestinian Authority repeatedly killed negotiations—even after Obama announced in 2010 that they would begin shortly at Camp David and Netanyahu agreed—it is a mainstay of mass media coverage that Netanyahu is responsible for the failure of negotiations to happen.
A friend joked that Netanyahu should change his first name from Benjamin to “Hard-line” since that’s the way he’s usually presented in the Western mass media.
Thus, Israeli cynicism should be—if people knew the factors behind it—understandable. After all, the sum total of international wisdom on the now-dead (but pretended to be alive) “peace process” is that this means Israel giving up things and getting nothing in return.
Yet Israel is prepared to go along with Obama again in some fashion. Why? Because it is necessary to preserve the strong relationship with the United States. Obama will be president for the next four years and some help from him is needed on the Iran nuclear issue, the likely growing threat from Egypt, military aid, and other issues.
That is political reality.
At the same time, though, the idea—again, prevalent in mass media coverage—that Netanyahu must “moderate” to form a government is not true. First, a very important lesson: Ignore everything said by Israeli politicians and media during the coalition-forming period because it is invariably misleading. This is what experience has shown virtually without exception.
Now, Netanyahu’s basic choice is to bring together at least two of the following three parties: The traditional liberal Yesh Atid led by Yair Lapid; the Sephardic religious Shas, and the right-wing Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi, led by Naftali Bennett. This is like the story of how you get the fox, the chicken, and the grain across a river without something getting eaten. It is very difficult.
Yesh Atid, led by Yair Lapid, has called for Netanyahu to work hard to get talks with the Palestinians going again. This has been treated as some major move of pressure. Of course not. That’s what Lapid is going to say and should say. And Netanyahu should also say—as he has done hundreds of times in the last four years—that he wants to get negotiations going.
That does not deal, however, with how many unilateral concessions Israel is willing to give to do so and whether the Palestinian Authority—now believing it is victorious from having the U.N. recognize it as a state—would go along. Everyone knows this. So to say that Israel should try to get negotiations going again is equivalent to someone in America saying that it is important to improve the economy.
Yet the reality of coalition negotiations is this: Lapid doesn’t like Bennett and vice-versa; Lapid and Bennett don’t like Shas; Netanyahu doesn’t like Bennett and knows that adding him would create international costs. And by the way, would Bennett enter a government that started out by announcing a long freeze in construction?
So it isn’t as easy as mainstream conventional wisdom makes it seem.
It is also suggested the P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas might actually give up something to get negotiations going. Like what? Perhaps giving up law suits against Israel—which is now supposedly occupying the territory of an internationally recognized Palestinian state, allegedly achieved without any agreement with Israel—in the international court.
Well, maybe. But Abbas faces massive political pressure in his society that far exceeds anything Netanyahu faces. What will he get for giving up what he has claimed as a trump card, a great victory? He certainly doesn’t fear pressure from Obama. Unlike Israel, the Palestinians can do anything they want and not face costs or even public criticism from the American president.
In other words, the whole thing isn’t going to work. Obama might come away with just enough to claim some success, a claim that will be echoed in the mass media. But it would be meaningless.
From Israel’s standpoint, however, letting Obama take the bows as a great peacemaker is worthwhile as long as it doesn’t cost too much or involve too much risk. Ironically, because of Obama’s policies and the rising boldness of its enemies and a revolutionary Islamism that feels itself triumphant, Israel is going to need U.S. support a bit more in the coming four years.