Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Attention Russian Readers--We Need Your Help

Will all the hub-bub around the Boston Terrorist Attack, we are requesting help from our Russian readers. Can you give us more information about Chechen rebels/terrorists/patriots. Are they freedom fighters or blood thirsty killers? Do they have any arguments?  Should we be concerned with them here in the US? Should we be cooperating with Russian leadership  (Putin.) 

Since we do not have a lot of experience with the Chechen people, the next couple months will be vital in the US and abroad to get the most information that we can get. Any help you can provide us, will be appreciated.

Conservative Tom

Senator Advocates Squelching Rights

Although we agree with many things that Lindsey Graham may say, the ones, tweeted yesterday, are very scary.  
The Boston bomber is an American citizen and should be treated as such. He did a dastardly and horrible deed, however, he still is an American unlike the underwear bomber or the shoe bomber who were foreign nationals.   He should have been given his Miranda rights upon arrest and he should be tried (as was Timothy McVeigh of Oklahoma City fame) in an American court by a jury of his peers. The lack of a warning before questioning will become an issue before trial.  The so-called "public safety" exception will be challenged by any competent defense attorney.
Secondly, by wanting drones in the air over America sends chills down through our bones. If the police (local, state, ATF, FBI, DHS) or any city, state or Federal Administration can unleash this weapon against our citizens without a conviction, without a finding of responsibility, we have just allowed the law enforcers to become judge, jury and executioner.  How many abuses have we seen over the years by police? Do you really want them to have this weapon at their command? We don't and any rational citizen should not either.
These are the times when our freedoms can be lost. We already allow federal agents to grope us at the airports (physically or via technology), DHS is on a buying spree for weapons, ammunition and vehicles, and our guns are being targeted for confiscation. Now we have a Republican Senator explicitly saying that a citizen should not be guaranteed his rights and promotion of using drones to kill American citizens, not overseas, but right here in the good ole USA.  This is a very disturbing development.
In the next few months, we must be on guard to prevent further erosion of our rights. It will be our responsibility as it is clear that the governing class is not interested in what is best for the average American.
Conservative Tom
Saturday, 20 Apr 2013 10:40 AM
Graham on Twitter: Treat Bomb Suspect as Enemy Combatant

By Sandy Fitzgerald
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wants the Obama administration to treat suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant rather than hold a traditional criminal trial.

“I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes,” the South Carolina senator said in a series of Twitter posts Friday night, prior to the teen's capture.

Related: No Miranda Rights for Boston Terror Suspect
The enemy combatant status is generally used for members of al Qaeda and other forces, which allows them to be held indefinitely for questioning.

Graham also said the Obama administration should use drones to track down any other suspects in the case.

“America is a battlefield because the terrorists think it is,” Graham said. “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there.”

Tsarnaev became a U.S. citizen last year, making the case more complicated. His older brother, Tamerlan Tsamaev, 26, who was killed Friday in a shootout with police, held a green card but was not an American citizen. Legal experts do not believe the Obama administration will change the younger brother's criminal status, even though it has maintained that Miranda warnings can be delayed for certain terrorism suspects.

However, the Obama administration has refused to hold other terrorism suspects under enemy combatant status, including suspects like underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was not a U.S. citizen.

"The current administration has a firm and publicly stated policy against using military detention for domestic captures or U.S. citizens. So whatever the (National Defense Authorization Act) may theoretically authorize or tolerate, it doesn't affect this situation," said Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution.

While there has been no definite, direct evidence presented to link the brothers to al Qaeda, Graham said the Obama administration needs to take care when dealing with the incident.

“The Obama Administration needs to be contemplating these issues and should not rush into a bad decision,” Graham tweeted.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Obama Fiddles; Terrorist Groups Grow

Heritage’s Carafano: Obama’s ‘Head in the Sand’ on Terror

Saturday, 20 Apr 2013 10:03 AM
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Heritage Foundation security and defense expert James Jay Carafano tells Newsmax the Obama administration is so eager to declare victory in the war on terror that it is “putting its head in the sand” and ignoring the rapid growth of non-al-Qaida terrorist groups.

Carafano, the vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative think tank, praised the post 9/11 homeland security effort as “very effective,” citing some 54 instances where attacks and bombings targeted the United States were thwarted. But he criticized the administration for downplaying the war on terror as if it already had been won.

In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview on Friday, Carafano charged the administration has “defined their way out of the problem” by focusing only on al-Qaida.

“They’ve basically said that we are fighting al-Qaida central, and al-Qaida and its affiliates, where people are actually planning operations to attack the U.S. or its allies. Well, when you define the enemy that way, you look pretty good.

“But the problem is there are a lot of groups that hate us, that aren’t necessarily directly affiliated with al-Qaida, which could attack the United States tomorrow and could be a significant threat, whether it’s Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian Quds Force, or other things. And the reality is you’re not always going to get the early warning or signs that, ‘Tomorrow, I’m just going to decide to attack the United States.’”

Latest: Do You Support Background Checks on Gun Buyers? Vote in Urgent Poll

Carafano told Newsmax.TV it is not clear yet whether Islamic extremism played any role in the Boston Marathon bombing. But he said he fears “we’ve adopted a counterterrorism strategy which generally means that the United States is putting its head in the sand and pretending that threats are laxing when the reality is, if you look across North Africa, if you look at what’s going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the threat is not laxing. There is no waning.”

In fact, Carafano told Newsmax, the threat of terrorism is growing. And he says the current administration “has adopted a counterterrorism strategy which really relies on ignoring a lot of the people who might potentially want to kill us.”

Carafano, a leading U.S. national security expert, advised it is simply too soon to save what motivated the two bombing suspects to commit their horrific act. But he said authorities are leaving no stone unturned in an effort to determine if someone radicalized the youths and encouraged them to commit the bombing, perhaps via the internet.

“Pretty much the No. 1 one tool of global radicalization is the internet,” he said. “Now, we use the internet to buy stuff on But to terrorists, it’s their most important asset.

“They use it for fundraising, they use it for recruiting, they use it for propaganda, and they use it for radicalization. So they lure people into these things called chat rooms, or emails or discussions, and then they move them into discussions about politics and religion into increasingly more violent activities, sometimes coordinated, sometimes just inspired.”

Carafano tells Newsmax that al-Qaida actually produces an online magazine called Inspire instructing Westerners how to commit acts of terrorism against Americans.

Carafano was critical of the quality of the mainstream media’s coverage of the attacks, which at several key points conveyed inaccurate information to the public. And he praised the national-security infrastructure for stopping as many terrorists attacks as it has.

“We’ve been constantly under attack since 9/11,” Carafano said. “We’ve seen everything. Plots overseas, homegrown plots, self-radicalized connected with something else. So we’ve seen a little bit of everything. We’ve seen a lot of very effective stopping of it.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Boston Bomber--Another Government Screw Up

The FBI interviewed the older Boston Bomber in 2011 after information was received about him from another country and did not deport him after he had a domestic violence conviction in 2009. Where is our government? Where is the personal responsibility of those who are supposed to be protecting us? How many others are waiting in the wings to attack us? Does our government even care about its citizens?

We asked the same questions after 9/11 and it appears as if thirteen years later, we still have not learned our lessons. Will we ever? It is doubtful.

Government has become so large and insulated from citizen action, that no one is ever held responsible.  No one loses their job when things get screwed up. This is especially true for the higher-ups.  

We are still waiting for explanations for Fast and Furious and Benghazi.  We predict that we will never have an answer. Will anyone be punished for missing the Boston bomber's intentions in 2011 or the lack of attention to his conviction two years prior? No, the government does not do that.  

When government is no longer responsible to its citizens, it loses touch, it protects itself and those who work for it.  It is at that point the government can do anything, justify any action. We are there now.

As I listened to the President last night, he briefly mentioned citizen input into the investigation while lauding "great police and investigative" work done by government officials. However, the initial identification of the second bomber was not done by any police official but rather by an eye witness who was hurt by the very bomb the terrorist has put down feet from him.  Additionally, the capture and arrest of the second bomber occurred after a citizen found him hiding in a boat in his back yard. The police would not have found him without the aid of this gentlemen as they had earlier in the day presumed that he had left the area.  

As this situation dramatically illustrates, the police are not psychic and need input. Yet government agents always discount the importance of the information they receive from the citizens and praise themselves for their brilliant work.

The Boston bomber story is one that dramatically illustrates the incompetency of government to protect us even when given the information (same thing happened with the 9/11 conspirators and the underwear bomber.) Yet when the tragedy does occur, they laud themselves with praise for solving the case. Isn't it time that they get their priorities right?

Conservative Tom

FBI Interviewed Boston Bombing Suspect in 2011

Friday, 19 Apr 2013 10:15 PM

More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
WASHINGTON -- The FBI and other law enforcement agencies were aware of at least one of the Boston terror suspects for several years, and even failed to deport him after a domestic violence conviction in 2009.

The FBI in 2011 interviewed one of the brothers suspected in the deadly Boston Marathon bombings, a disclosure that raises questions about whether the government missed potential warning signs about the men's behavior.

The brothers had not been under surveillance as possible militants, U.S. government officials said. But the FBI said in a statement on Friday that in 2011 it interviewed Tamerlan at the request of a foreign government, which it did not identify.

"The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups," the FBI statement said.

The matter was closed because interviews with Tamerlan and family members "did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign".Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed early Friday in Boston after an overnight shootout with police. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, was taken into custody on Friday evening in the Boston suburb of Watertown after a dramatic, day-long manhunt, Boston police said.

Bleeding and in serious condition, Dzhokhar is in a Boston hospital, a Massachusetts State Police spokesman said.

A spokeswoman for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Kelly Lawman, confirmed on Saturday that Tsarnaev was being treated there, but declined comment on his condition.

The revelation that the elder Tsarnaev was on U.S. law enforcement authorities' radar screens seemed likely to raise uncomfortable questions for the Obama administration about whether it could have done anything to detect and stop the plot.
"It's new information to me and it's very disturbing that he's on the FBI radar screen," Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on CNN late Friday.

In an interview with Russian state television broadcaster RT, the mother of the bombing brothers said Tamerlan, the older of the two suspects, had been under FBI surveillance for at least three years.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed in a shootout with police a day before his brother’s capture yesterday, was accessing extremist sites and was closely monitored by the FBI, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva said in a phone interview in English from Makhachkala, in the southern Russian region of Dagestan, posted on the channel’s website.

“My son would never do this,” Tsarnaeva said. “He was controlled by the FBI for three to five years, they knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions, on what sites on the Internet he was going,” she said. “So how could this happen? They were controlling every step of his.”

Tsarnaeva, whose younger son Dzhokar, 19, was captured after an almost 24-hour manhunt that shut down Boston and surrounding cities, said she had been interviewed by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents about Tamerlan, who had described him as an “extremist leader.”

The brothers’ father, Anzor, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said he was present when the FBI interviewed Tamerlan in Cambridge. He said they visited for what they called “prevention” activities.

“They said: 'We know what sites you are on, we know where you are calling, we know everything about you. Everything,'” he said as cited in the interview.

Tamerlan, a legal resident of the U.S., flew out of the country on a flight bound for Russia in January 2012 and may not have returned until July, said two law enforcement officials briefed on his travel.

U.S. intelligence agencies reviewing international communications and other terrorism intelligence found no signs that the suspected bombers were members of, or inspired by, any foreign terror group, said a U.S. official who asked not to be identified because those matters are classified.

The Tsarnaev brothers and their two sisters moved to the Dagestan region of Russia in October 2001 from the central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan as refugees, and left for the U.S in March 2002, said Emirmagomed Davudov, director of Gimnasium Number 1 in Dagestan, where Tamerlan went to the seventh grade and Dzhokhar to first grade.

Ruslan Tsarni, their uncle in Gaithersburg, Maryland, said his brother’s children arrived in Cambridge when they immigrated in 2003. Asked for a possible motive for the attacks, Tsarni said they were “losers not being able to settle themselves and thereby just hating everybody who did.”

National security and law enforcement authorities said on earlier Friday that they had not turned up any evidence that the Tsarnaevs had contacts with al Qaeda or other militants overseas.

The brothers were in the United States legally. But Tamerlan Tsarnaev could have been deported after an alleged domestic violence arrest in 2009, the website Judicial Watch reports. It is unclear whether Tsarnaev was convicted in the case, but the arrest alone would have been sufficient for deportation, the site reports.

Tsarnaev came to this country in 2006 on a tourist visa, which means his alleged crime occurred within his first five years in the U.S.

According to Federal Immigration Law, anyone who commits a crime of “moral turpitude,”  including violent crimes such as assault and battery, during the first five years after being admitted to the country can be deported if the crime was punishable by a one-year jail sentence.
Violent plots involving a single individual or small groups who self-radicalize and have minimal dealings with other militants can be extremely difficult to detect in advance, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and private experts.The revelation about the FBI contacts with the elder Tsarnaev came as U.S. officials told Reuters that investigators are scouring government data banks to determine if spy and police agencies missed potential clues that might have alerted them to the two brothers, originally from the Russian republic of Chechnya.
Another top priority for investigators is to determine whether the brothers had any confederates either inside the United States or overseas, one U.S. official said. This official and others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Three people were taken into custody for questioning in New Bedford, Massachusetts, police said on Friday. Two men and a woman are being questioned by the FBI "on the assumption there is an affiliation with" Tsarnaev, Lieutenant Robert Richard of the New Bedford Police said.
One official said the possibility that the U.S. government had information that should have raised questions about the Tsarnaev brothers before the attack could not be ruled out. Other officials said they were unaware that such material had turned up.
In several recent cases, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies failed to put together clues that, in hindsight, might have led them to pre-empt a plot.
In 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 people and wounded another 32 at Fort Hood, Texas. Prior to the shooting spree, Hassan had email contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric and leader of al Qaida's affiliate in Yemen who was later killed in a U.S. drone strike.
U.S. authorities had investigated Hassan's emails, but concluded they posed no threat of violence.
The father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "underwear bomber" who tried to bring down a U.S. jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, reported suspicions about his son's activities to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. But Abdulmutallab's U.S. visa was never revoked.
A report by the Senate intelligence committee heavily criticized U.S. intelligence agencies for failing to act on available information in that case.
But Brian Jenkins, a respected terrorism expert at the RAND Corp., dismissed the idea that the Boston bombings represented an intelligence failure.
People will inevitably ask, "did we miss something in intelligence?" said Jenkins, speaking before the news of the 2011 FBI interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev become public.
"Some people will label it an 'intelligence failure.' But that's because people have come to expect 100 percent security," he said.
© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Some T-Shirts Are Veboten

The anti gunners are going to win! A t-shirt is not allowed in schools as it shows a gun. If you think that this is occurring  in a liberal bastion like San Francisco or New York City, you would be wrong. It is in West Virginia!


An eighth grade student from West Virginia has been arrested, suspended and faces charges for wearing an NRA T-shirt with the image of a firearm and the words “Protect Your Right” printed on it to school.
West Virginia Eighth Grade Student Arrested Charged and Suspended Over NRA Gun T Shirt
Conflict over Jared Marcum’s shirt got him arrested and suspended from school. (Image: WOWK screenshot)
WOWK-TV reported Jared Marcum saying he never thought there would be a problem with his pro-Second Amendment apparel.
“I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this. There shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Marcum told WOWK-TV.
Police confirmed that Marcum had been arrested and faced charges of obstruction and disturbing the education process after getting into an argument over the shirt with a teacher at Logan Middle School, which is south of Charleston.
West Virginia Eighth Grade Student Arrested Charged and Suspended Over NRA Gun T Shirt
Marcum with his father. (Image: WOWK screenshot)
Logan Middle School’s policy regarding dress states:
A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions.
The student’s father, Allen Lardieri, told WOWK that the shirt didn’t violate this policy, nor did his son become aggressive when confronted about it.
“I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again,” Lardieri said.
Watch the report:
WOWK 13 Charleston, Huntington WV News, Weather, Sports
This story has been updated to correct that the station is WOWK-TV. 

Friday, April 19, 2013

One of six dollars goes to Welfare--Does That Make Any Sense?

Welfare Makes Up One-Sixth Of Federal Budget

April 19, 2013 by  
Welfare Makes Up One-Sixth Of Federal Budget
A strange amalgam of interests, accelerated by the Administration of President Barack Obama’s constituency-expanding entitlement policies, are driving a surge in the predominant role that welfare programs continue to play in accounting for an ever-increasing chunk of the Federal budget.
Welfare spending programs — not includingSocial Security, Medicare and unemployment — have come to comprise one-sixth of the Federal budget, according to a Forbesreport.
That’s one-sixth — without taking into account the money the government throws at the Medicare mammoth.
As it turns out, the war on poverty is a lucrative business for special corporate interests wise to the fact that there’s money to be made in helping the welfare state extend its reach — in expanding the definition of “poverty,” as the Obama Administration has done, in order to catch more Americans in its entitlement dragnet.
“A record-shattering 50 million Americans now live below the poverty line, a number likely to grow as Obamanomics drives more people out of the work force and onto one assistance program or another,” the Forbes article states. “What could be better for the myriad civil servants and wing-tipped bankers who dole out benefits as ever more ‘clients’ join the ranks of the poor and unemployed?”
Financial institutions lap up the transaction fees processed each time a food stamp card is swiped at the point of “sale.”
Farmers, already among the most subsidized of any private capitalists, serve out the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s agenda of expanding various nutrition assistance programs by devoting an increasing portion of their yields to food aid programs that have grown since their inception in the 1960s.
And, on the government side, the Federal worker bureaucracy compounds in both complexity and number each year, because it takes more government employees to cross-coordinate and implement Federal assistance programs that dish out more “help” to more people than at any time in our Nation’s short history as a welfare state.

Gun Grabbers Get Temporary Defeat, Unfortunately

A Huge Defeat For The Gun Grabbers

April 19, 2013 by  
A Huge Defeat For The Gun Grabbers
Congratulations, patriots! Thanks to your unremitting pressure on the politicians in Washington, every single assault on our 2nd Amendment rights went down to defeat in the Senate this week.
Prior to the votes, Senate leaders had agreed that a 60-vote majority would be necessary for approval of the various proposals. They did this to head off a threatened filibuster led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
For one of the few times this year, Vice President Joe Biden even returned to the Senate to preside over the voting. The gesture was purely symbolic, since there wasn’t a snowball’s chance that he’d get to exercise his Constitutional prerogative to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. He was there to gloat in victory; instead, he looked like he had been sucking on lemons when he had to announce the agony of defeat.
Gun control advocates had pulled out all of the stops to get passage, including numerous appearances by relatives of the victims from the schoolhouse slayings in Newtown, Conn., and Tucson, Ariz. President Barack Obama had flown many of them to Washington on board Air Force One so they could lobby lawmakers, appear with him in a photo op in the Rose Garden and pack the Senate galleries. (One violated Senate protocol, and demonstrated very bad manners, by shouting “Shame on you!” after the vote.)
The first vote was taken on the measure gun-control advocates were most confidant of getting passed: expanding background checks to include the private sale or transfer of firearms. This was the highly publicized “compromise” measure put together by Senators Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
When the votes were tallied, the measure failed by 54-46. Five Democrats joined 41 Republicans in opposing the measure. They included three Senators facing re-election next year: Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana. Significantly, all three States gave Mitt Romney a solid majority last November. The nervous Senators were joined by Heidi Heitkamp, the newly elected junior Senator from North Dakota. And a name most people would be surprised to see on the “no” side was that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He made it clear that he cast his negative ballot purely as a procedural matter, so he could bring the measure back up for a vote sometime in the future.
The three Republicans who voted “aye,” in addition to Toomey, can usually be found voting in favor of tougher gun-control measures. They were John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois. No surprises there.
Among the other measures that went down to defeat last Wednesday afternoon were a proposed ban on assault weapons, which got only 40 votes, and an effort to block the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, which received 46 “ayes.” Even a measure that was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, which would have expanded concealed carry permits, got only 57 positive votes — three short of the 60 necessary for passage.
Obama wasted no time in declaring that the votes two days ago made it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.” His anger at being thwarted was obvious. He vowed that gun-control advocates will redouble their efforts to regulate and restrict our right to keep and bear arms. “This effort is not over,” he declared.
But for now it certainly is. Proponents failed to persuade opponents that expanded background checks would do anything to help prevent future tragedies like the ones in Newtown; Tucson; or Aurora, Colo. Of course they won’t. And every gun grabber knows it.
What would make a difference? Let’s take a look at what some cops say. When some 15,000 law-enforcement personnel were asked that question, here’s how they responded:
When asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally armed civilian been there, 80 percent said there would have been fewer casualties; 6.2 percent said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5 percent thought it would have led to greater loss of life.
When asked what could be done to prevent future mass public shootings, the most popular answer — picked by 28.8 percent  – was for more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians. More aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill was the choice of 19.6 percent. More armed guards were favored by 15.8 percent. Of course, none of these solutions are acceptable to the gun grabbers.
Improved background checks were in fourth place, the choice of 14 percent of the respondents, followed by longer prison terms when guns are used in violent crimes (7.9 percent).
What did the law-enforcement professionals have to say about about the left’s favorite solutions? A meager 1.5 percent put tighter limits on weapons sales at the top of their list. While legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and larger magazines didn’t even get a nod from one out of 100 of the boys and girls in blue, it was the choice of .9 percent.
When it comes to making the public safer, including our children, “the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility” has the right answer: Get more arms in the right hands. And do a better job of getting the truly crazy off the streets.
Now there’s a program that would make us all sleep better at night. Don’t you agree?
In the meantime, have a wonderful weekend, knowing that we won some significant victories in Washington this week. But remember, too, that eternal vigilance will always be the price we must pay to preserve and protect our liberties.
So until next time, stay on guard. And keep some powder dry.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

NRA Banner Not Shown At NASCAR Race

Call it political correctness gone haywire! An organization (NRA) sponsors a NASCAR race and the "bright" people don't want to show the banner for the sponsoring group. Does that make sense? Of course not unless you do not want to insult anyone!   

Political correctness is ruining this country and now it has spread to one of the most conservative of all sports, car racing. When it goes into every corner of the society, it is nearly impossible to remove and that is where we are today. 

This country has big problems and no one is addressing them. The government is incompetent, religious leaders are afraid to abide by their beliefs, individuals will not stand up for themselves and businesses are only interested in making money.  When a company like Chick Fil A stands up for what it believes, people support them.  

We need to make a change or this country will be lost.

Conservative Tom


NASCAR Racers Told Not to Appear With NRA Logo Behind Them: Sources
FORT WORTH, TX – APRIL 12: Dale Earnhardt Jr., driver of the #88 Hellmann’s Chevrolet, leads a group of cars during the NASCAR Nationwide Series O’Reilly Auto Parts 300 at Texas Motor Speedway on April 12, 2013 in Fort Worth, Texas. Credit: (Credit too long, see caption)
Did the AP, ESPN, and Fox refuse to mention the race’s actual name, the “NRA 500″? We investigatehere.
ESPN said that sources confirmed to the outlet that two drivers have been advised by their PR people not to conduct interviews in the Texas Motor Speedway media center in order to avoid the NRA logo from appearing behind them.
The move is just the latest in media hysteria that has resulted from the NRA sponsoring Saturday night’s NASCAR Sprint Cup race, the NRA 500.
Earlier in the week Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy (D) urged Fox not to air the race in an attempt to demonize the NRA, which has been critical of some of the gun control measures that have cropped up in the wake of the Newtown massacre.
“This celebration of guns is inappropriate in the immediate wake of the Newtown massacre,” Murphy said in a statement. “But most importantly, broadcasting this race, which will highlight the NRA and its radical agenda during this time, sends a harmful signal to the families affected by gun violence, as well as the millions of Americans who support sensible gun control measures and enjoy your sports programming.”
But Murphy isn’t the only one making controversial statements. NASCAR spokesman David Higdon is sharing that honor. On Friday, Higdon released a statement seemingly bowing to pressure from critics.
“The NRA’s sponsorship of the event at Texas Motor Speedway fit within existing parameters that NASCAR affords tracks in securing partnerships,” Higdon said. “However, this situation has made it clear that we need to take a closer look at our approval process moving forward, as current circumstances need to be factored in when making decisions.”
On Friday afternoon, Texas Motor Speedway president Eddie Gossage shot back.
“I would say about Mr. Higdon is, I think he’s new to the sport and doesn’t quite understand how it all works,” Gossage told local ESPN Dallas radio host Randy Galloway. “And he could have just as easily put out a quote that said C.Y.A. [cover your ass]. That’s what that is.”
“It’s a PR mistake to have made that statement,” he added. “They should have conferred with some other folks before they issued that.”
The race is one of the few night races during the NASCAR season, and will take place at 6:30 CT. TheBlaze will have two writers at the event, so stay tuned this weekend for continued coverage.