It's Coming--A Cutoff Of Aid To Israel by Obama

When we read the following posting, a couple paragraphs caught our attention. They are:

"“Obama has made it clear to Netanyahu that his visit is not about photo-ops, but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state,” a source in the PM’s office told WT. “The implication is that if Israel won’t give him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own.”

The sources said the White House warned that Obama’s forthcoming visit could characterize U.S. relations with Israel over the next four years. They said Obama aides stressed that Congress, which approved $3.1 billion in military aid to Israel for 2013, supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as a U.S. priority."

The verbiage in the last sentence of the first paragraph is very chilling. In other words, either do what Obama wants or he will act on his own which will not be in Israel's interests. Those words are followed with a direct threat to the money that Congress appropriated for military aid to Israel. 

Our reading of the above is very clear. Obama is saying that either Israel allows the establishment of a Palestinian state, without any conditions or military aid (and possibly all aid) will be cut off by him.

We are quickly approaching a point in time when Israel will face a decision worthy of the sword of Damocles. Will it give into the demands of the Obama regime to give up significant pieces of land and allow a hostile nation to be established on those areas or will it have to go it alone against their enemies, which will include the US. This is not a pleasant choice.

Netanyahu is trying to placate the regime by giving away some territory, however, that will not work with Obama. The President has decided what the Middle East should look like, who will live where and which countries (and governments) will survive. Unfortunately for Israel, he is not on their side.

We expect that the "negotiated territorial exchanges" reflected by the 1967 lines will be significantly different than any previously proposed lines. Under the proposals we expect from Obama, Israel will shrink significantly in size giving up both the Golan Heights and Jerusalem which will be "internationalized" with the UN being in charge of the city. 

Also, we believe that Israel will be cut in half by a highway between Gaza and the West Bank. Israelis will not be able to cross this highway except by air or pre-arranged passage. The argument will be that the Palestinians "deserve" to have a contiguous country. Somehow the idea that Israel also should will not be mentioned.

We hope that we are completely wrong, however, given the fact that the Obama Administration has made it clear that it is his way or else, we can see the writing is very much on the wall!

What should Netanyahu do? Should he face the Obama wrath? Should he endanger the money from the US? Could Israel be named a pariah nation and be subjected to the damage that designation would cause? These are very tough decisions, however, we believe that the Prime Minister has the intestinal fortitude to make  decisions which are in the best interests of Israel.

Our opinion is that Israel must look out for its interests first and foremost. Giving up the Golan would be a military tactical mistake especially in light of the turmoil in Syria. We would hope that Israel would not agree to giving up Jerusalem. As it now exists, Christian, Muslims and Jews all have free access to all of the city. We do not think that would exist under UN auspices.  Jews, especially, would be restricted to the places they could go as not to upset the Muslims.

As far as the "highway" we would see no problem with Gaza and the West Bank being connected, however, Israelis must be able to have free access to both sides of the country. We would suggest that where the "highway" crosses an existing or proposed road, that tunnels be dug or overpasses build so that the traffic on any of the  roads would not be disturbed. 

It is possible to solve the problem with the "highway" however, it takes two parties who can reasonably discuss the issue and come up with a solution.  Will the Palestinians meet Israel half way? The answer is probably not. When that occurs, Obama will insist on his solution.

Conservative Tom

P.S. If you want to know what will happen when Obama insists on his solutions against the will of Israel, read Genesis 12-3. It is spelled out there. America will never be the same again.

Netanyahu Gesture to Obama: Territory Giveaway to Palestinians

Yori Yanover - Jewish Press,  March 5th, 2013

A model of Rawabi, a massive new construction project just north of of Ramallah. Netanyahu is considering turning over the entire system of roads that wili serve Rawabi.
(Photo Credit: Issam Rimawi / FLASH90)

In anticipation of U.S. President Barack Obama visit to Israel at the end of this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering a significant package of gestures to the Palestinians, Maariv reports. The security system has submitted to Netanyahu its recommendations for goodwill gestures, with the stated proviso that these would not endanger the PM’s own political future.

Sources in Netanyahu’s circle explained that the gestures are of a political nature, intended to ease the hardships the Palestinian Authority is facing, generating a positive public image for Israel at a relatively low political cost.

A similar package has previously been discussed at least in part in talks between Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair and Netanyahu. At the time, the Prime Minister refused these ideas.

One of the gestures in discussion is a specific transfer of land from Area C in the West Bank (which is under full Israeli control) to an Area A status (full Palestinian control). This concerns the transfer of the access roads planned to serve the new city of Rawabi, the first Palestinian planned city under PA rule, near Birzeit and Ramallah, with 10,000 homes, with a population of 40,000. Another road that would be turned over to full Palestinian control serves the industrial park outside Tulkarm.

An additional gesture under review is the approval of master plans for ten Palestinian settlements in the Israeli-controlled Area C. These are all Palestinian neighborhoods which today are considered illegal and concerning which the Civil Administration has issued demolition orders.

If these master plans are approved, these settlements will be connected to the infrastructure and all construction there will be approved.

Two additional gestures are the release of a significant number of Fatah prisoners, arrested before the signing of the Oslo Accords; and the transfer of light ammunition to the Palestinian security forces.

The Israeli political system is expecting that Obama will be pushing to be able to announce the resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians during his visit to the Middle East. One view holds that the President will only make this announcement in Amman, following his meeting with King Abdullah.

The Prime Minister’s circle fears that Palestinian expectations of the Obama visit are too high, compared to what can be gotten immediately following the renewal of direct talks, especially when those expectations are compared to what the Israeli side is ready to give. In such a case, Palestinian disappointment may result in another deterioration of the security situation.

According to the World Tribune, Obama has demanded a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

“Obama has made it clear to Netanyahu that his visit is not about photo-ops, but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state,” a source in the PM’s office told WT. “The implication is that if Israel won’t give him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own.”

The sources said the White House warned that Obama’s forthcoming visit could characterize U.S. relations with Israel over the next four years. They said Obama aides stressed that Congress, which approved $3.1 billion in military aid to Israel for 2013, supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as a U.S. priority.

“The Obama people are making this a litmus test of Netanyahu’s leadership and credibility,” the Israeli source said. “Obama supporters in Congress have sent Netanyahu a similar message.”

DHS Accept Delivery Of Armored Vehicles--What Is Their Purpose?

Coming to your city soon, an 18 ton vehicle with armored glass, run flat tires, gun ports and all the while being land mine resistant. Doesn't that give you warm feelings? The 2717 vehicles are being send to Homeland Security with the 1 1/2 billion bullets they have ordered.  Still think nothing is coming? Even Ray Charles could see that this does not portend good things.

Why is this government buying these expensive vehicles?  Is Homeland Security becoming a domestic military force? Are Americans so lawless that the government needs such vehicles? Is the current spate of new laws on guns part of a coordinated  plan to confiscate weapons and these vehicles will be used against those Americans who do not go along? Or are we just a bunch of paranoid jerks who see government takeover around every corner?

Rationally, the purchases of bullets and armored vehicles do not make any sense, unless we do not know something that the government does. Could they be expecting that we will be invaded? If so, would the Armed Services not take care of that?

This leaves internal civil disturbances like have occurred throughout the Middle East as part of the "Arab Spring" movement. Do they know that there are groups ready to riot this summer and are preparing for it? If so, who are these groups and why do we not know about them? Or is the government afraid of those returning servicemen/women who cannot find jobs and those domestic terrorists who "cling to their guns and bibles?" Now those are people of which we should be afraid!  Wrong!

Should the government know who is going to cause the "rebellion", we, the public, should know who they are so that we can help law enforcement. However, it appears as if something else is afoot and this sends our paranoia meter through the roof.

Never in the history of this country has a domestic agency so heavily armed itself. Who do they fear and should we fear them?  

Conservative Tom

Latest Homeland Security Armored Vehicle

September 6, 2012
Ken Jorgustin

3

Of the nearly 9,000 delivered MaxxPro units to the military, the Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the
U.S. Army Forces Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

As these MRAP’s return from overseas/Afghanistan, and although it is apparently unknown exactly how many are being delivered, or have been delivered to DHS, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself…

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division within the Navistar organization.
Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

———————-
From Navistar Defense:

The International® MaxxPro® is Navistar Defense’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle and incorporates the latest design in armoring technology. Extensively tested by the military and used in theater today, the MaxxPro features a V-shaped hull and other design features that greatly improve survivability.

MaxxPro® MRAP specifications:

Length: 254″ (21.2 feet)
Width: 102″ (8.5 feet)
Height: 120″ (10 feet)
Wheel base: 153″ (12.8 feet)
Curb weight: 37,850 lbs. (18.9 tons)
Engine: MaxxForce® 9.3

The MaxxPro MRAP is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and other emerging threats. Its V-shaped hull helps deflect blasts out and away from the crew and its armoring can be customized to meet any mission requirement.

———————-

The installation contract retrofits 2,717 vintage MaxxPro vehicles (work performed in West Point, Mississippi) with a new rolling chassis. This chassis enhancement included the addition of the DXM™ independent suspension, a MaxxForce® 9.3 engine, and a 570 amp alternator and driveline.
The work was completed at the end of May 2012. A subset of the work was completed May 2012, while all work is expected to be complete by the end of October 2013.

———————-

Observations and Questions:

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?

It is understandable that these may be beneficial to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in hot zones on our southern border, however these are being seen all over America, far from her borders…

There are rails along the perimeter windows/gun ports to help displace the impact of RPG rounds… seems a bit much for a Police/Rescue vehicle…

They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?
What is DHS expecting or preparing for?

It is a ridiculous over-the-top display of force that is intended to intimidate, and associate the DHS name and logo with ‘FEAR’. The new normal. The new way of American life.

George Washington once said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Update: One reader has suggested that the DHS vehicles are not Navistar MaxxPro, but Golan (Israeli made) armored vehicles, while another reader who apparently has worked for Navistar confirms that this vehicle is indeed made by Navistar. There have been numerous reports on this story swirling within the blogosphere with varying claims of make and model. While this new information may or may not be accurate, I still question the need for these types of military armored vehicles riding on the ‘free’ streets of America, regardless of who makes them.

More information.

Existing Reset Line Available to Service Vehicles Returning from Deployment

LISLE, Ill., March 15, 2012 Navistar Defense, LLC received an award to conduct the installation work associated with its January order to upgrade 2,717 International® MaxxPro® Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles with a new vehicle chassis.

source: http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com

These mods are for the “vehicle reset line”, meaning, for those that are or have apparently come home from overseas and are being re-purposed for use at home. Where are they exactly being deployed? It is difficult to say, because they have not exactly said. There are numerous pictures of these vehicles in America with ‘Homeland Security’ printed on the sides. The DoD and DHS have an apparent working relationship, and these returning MRAP’s are apparently being re-purposed here on American streets. On the one hand it may seem frugal to re-purpose, on the other hand… why are they showing up on our streets away from border hot zones… One could argue that we might simply mothball them until such time they’re needed again during war operations.

NAVISTAR DEFENSE RECEIVES MRAP INSTALLATION ORDER

“We are focused on increasing the capabilities of our existing fleet with minimal impact to defense funding,” said Archie Massicotte, president, Navistar Defense. “The vehicle reset line we established for this installation work can also be utilized to restore older vehicles to like-new condition. Therefore, we are poised and ready to reset vehicles returning from deployment…”

The installation contract retrofits vintage MaxxPro vehicles with a new rolling chassis. This chassis enhancement includes the addition of the DXM™ independent suspension, a MaxxForce® 9.3 engine, 570 amp alternator and driveline, while leaving a residual chassis with a beam axle that can be reused. The retrofits will be conducted in West Point, Miss., and work is expected to be completed by the end of May 2012.

The company has fielded nearly 9,000 MaxxPro vehicles and continues to anticipate needed vehicle capabilities, enhancements, reset and reuse options for its entire fleet of 32,000 vehicles.

source: Navistar Defense, LLC (March 15, 2012 archives)

The DHS and DoD report up the Executive branch to the Commander in Chief. The DoD / military is primarily limited to overseas actions due to the Posse Comitatus Act, while the new DHS (thanks to the Patriot Act after 9/11) is intended for operations on U.S. soil. The DHS is seemingly becoming the ‘legalized’ military here at home… and one could argue that it may be circumventing the Posse Comitatus Act to some degree.

GDP Growth Via Government Spending--Does Not Work

David, one of our faithful readers suggested this article to explain that government spending is not what drives the economy, rather it is the private sector that needs to grow. We agree with the author.

Private-sector growth is exactly the opposite direction that Obama would like to take the country. He wants more spending whether it be for defense, health care or employees of new programs. Government spending, with its requisite borrowing, siphons off dollars which could be used by business. This damages the private portion of the GDP by eliminating credit available for businesses to hire, purchase new equipment and expand.

We understand borrowing in a time of war such as WWII, however, it is foolhardy to think that we can continue spending at the pace the United States is and not face the prospect that we will find no one who wants to purchase our debt. In essence, we are at that point. The Federal Reserve is the largest holder of US debt while China, Japan and other countries are slowly reducing theirs.  Who bails out the Fed when the US government can no longer continue to print greenbacks? Or do they keep the presses going until it takes a million dollar bill to pay for a loaf of bread ala Weinmar Germany in the 20's.

Please tell us what you think.

Conservative Tom

Pethokoukis, Economics, Taxes and Spending

US needs more private-sector growth, not GDP accounting tricks

James Pethokoukis | February 27, 2013, 9:46 am

Simon Kuznets, the economist who created the accounting mechanism known as gross domestic product, warned that “distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.”

That quote casts an interesting light on new analysis by The New York Times which concludes “the drop in government’s contribution to economic growth is the largest in more than 50 years.” Now, that conclusion is correct — if your analysis of economic growth begins and ends with an examination of the components that constitute gross domestic product statistics. The past two years, for instance, saw the private sector bits of GDP rise and the public sector ones fall. But that’s not the whole story.

GDP is an accounting artifact that may or may not reflect economic reality, as Kuznets well knew, particularly when it comes to valuing government spending. As economist Tyler Cowen points out in The Great Stagnation, when government spends $1, government statisticians value its contribution to GDP as $1 — at cost — rather “than being able to measure prices set in a competitive market.” GDP values $1 spent by government on Solyndra, cancer research, an aircraft carrier, or an analysis of exotic ants as being equivalent to each other, the previous dollars that were spent — and to investment in a new semiconductor manufacturing plant by Intel.

Theoretically, GDP growth that was all government spending is no different than GDP growth entirely driven by the private sector. But is it really? An example: In 1983, GDP rose by 4.5%, with 0.8 percentage point of that coming from direct government spending. (Recall the big military buildup.) In 1997, GDP also rose by 4.5%, but just 0.3% came from government spending. Which was the healthier economy?

In the short run, the sequester — even if smartly managed to spare valuable, pro-growth public good spending such as basic research — would by definition lower GDP to some extent, as well as cost government jobs. But over the longer-term, more of our national economic resources and talent would be diverted to the more productive private sector where market forces would direct them to higher value uses. The result would be a stronger economy. The same goes for government distortions of the private sector such as subsidies which lead to megabanks. Do we really want our top scientists cooking up arcane financial derivatives and trading algorithms?

Look, government spending as a share of GDP has fallen by roughly a percentage point since 2009. Yet the past two years, nominal private-sector GDP rose by 5% a year. And remember the 1990s. Government spending fell from 22.3% of GDP in 1991 to 18.2% in 2000. Yet the economy grew at a 4% average annual rate. The goal of government policy should be to help grow the private sector, not grow government to inflate GDP statistics.

Educational Funny Factories

Insanity running rampant could be the title of this posting. Teachers kicking kids out of school for "pretending" and using pictures of guns. Have the the school system gone absolutely crazy? After reading this article, one would think so!

Conservative Tom

‘Tiny Terrorists’ Caught Up in Anti-Gun Hysteria

"Zero tolerance" for guns leads to college educated adults becoming irrational.Related: Today's Hysterical Gun Freakout: Teacher Invades Kid's Privacy, Threatens Him Over Digital Photo of Airsoft Gun

  

by
KMike CDanielE

March 4, 2013 - 5:10 pm

 

,A cursory exposure to the media post-Newtown might be alarming, even horrifying. Such non-inquisitive exposure could easily convince the unwary that an unprecedented number of kids are imminent school shooters. Thankfully, reading past sensational headlines, it’s easy to see that isn’t the issue. The question is yet another factor in the current gun-control debate: mental health. Specifically: have school authorities gone irredeemably mad?

As a teacher of high school English — and a firearms instructor — I have a dog in this fight. I often defend the public schools against unfair criticism, observing that most teachers are quiet professionals who do not indoctrinate their students with progressive propaganda. But what appears to be a nationwide epidemic of politically correct lunacy apparently sparked by the Newtown murders and egged on by President Obama’s anti-gun road show, and by his congressional fellow travelers, is running riot. These are just a few of the more recent incidents:

(1) Place: White Marsh Elementary School, Tabot County, Maryland

Tiny Terrorists:  Two six-year-old boys (kindergartners)

“Weapons”: Fingers

Punishment: One-day suspension

Facts: The boys were pointing their fingers at each other during recess while playing “cops and robbers.”

(2) Place: Mount Carmel Area School District, Pennsylvania

Tiny Terrorist: A five year-old girl (kindergartener)

“Weapon”: None

Punishment: 10-day suspension for making a “terroristic threat”

Facts: The girl told a classmate she wanted to “shoot” her and herself with a “Hello Kitty” bubble gun, a tiny, pink, cartoon ray-gun shaped bubble blower.  She was searched, but left the “gun” at home.  She was hectored in front of her class by the teacher and threatened with arrest.

(3) Place: D. Newlin Fell School, Philadelphia

Tiny Terrorist: A fifth-grade girl

Punishment: Searched and scolded in the presence of classmates, threatened with arrest.

Facts: The girl was given a paper gun by her grandfather the day before.  She set it on her desktop prior to throwing it away.  Her teacher seized it and yelled at her, and she was subsequently searched.  To avoid harassment, the girl has been withdrawn from school and is being home schooled.

(4) Place: Sumter County School District, Sumter, South Carolina

Tiny Terrorist: Six-year-old girl

Punishment: Expelled from school for a semester

Facts: The girl brought a broken, transparent plastic toy airsoft gun, with the soft plastic pellets visible inside, for show and tell. The toy was seized, the police were called, and the girl was threatened with arrest if she set foot on school property, forcing her parents to park off school grounds when they picked up the girl’s siblings.  After nearly a month, she was allowed to return to school after enormous pressure was applied via local media and the blogosphere.

(5) Place: Poston Butte High School, Tan Valley, Arizona

Tiny Terrorist: Freshman boy

Punishment: Three-day suspension

Facts: The boy, who plans a military career, posted a photograph of a gun as desktop wallpaper on his school-issued laptop computer.

(6) Place: Mary Blair Elementary School, Loveland, Colorado

Tiny Terrorist: Seven-year-old boy (2^nd grader)

Punishment: School suspension pending

Facts:  The boy was, by himself, playing “Rescue the World,” and threw an imaginary hand grenade into an imaginary box full of evil forces.  He said “pshhh” to simulate the sound of the exploding imaginary grenade.

Madness? One might reasonably expect a bit of well-intentioned over-reaction to a traumatic event with which people can so easily identify. But supposedly reasonable, college-educated adults appear to be engaging in a modern witch hunt, with all the dumbfounding lack of logic and reason that implies.

Notice that in all but a single case, the objects that provoked such revulsion and foolishness in educated adults could not possibly be mistaken for actual weapons.  In one case, the “weapon” was entirely imaginary, in others, the “weapons” were two-dimensional paper simulations.  None of the “weapons” involved could possibly be mistaken for an actual weapon or threat. Consider, too, that in none of these cases did the tiny terrorists so much as threaten another, with the exception of the five year old who expressed the desire to “shoot” herself and another with Hello Kitty bubbles.  There were no complaints, no actual weapons were brandished, no property was damaged, no one sustained so much as bruised feelings. There was no danger, indeed, no potential for danger. In every case, there was not the slightest evidence of evil intent.

It is tempting to believe this is evidence of an insidious progressive conspiracy. Indoctrinating the young and demonizing people, things, values, and ideas through repetition and shaming are an integral part of the literature and tactics of that movement. However, no conspiracy is necessary. While most American educators avoid political indoctrination in favor of professionally teaching their disciplines, there is no question that some do not and that in some schools, school districts, cities, even states, aggressive progressivism reigns with little or no opposition.

It’s not necessary to plot progressive indoctrination with other true believers; they already know what to think and what to do, and from whom to take their cues. At the moment, that would be Mr. Obama and other members of his administration on the permanent campaign trail. This time, they are specifically campaigning against the Second Amendment.

As powerful as political motivation might be, the faddish nature of education is equally compelling. For some time, “zero tolerance” policies of one kind or another have enjoyed substantial popularity.

The zero tolerance policy most familiar to the public is the “gun free” school zone, which for some produces feelings of safety. Unfortunately, like all zero tolerance polices, this is a complete failure, actually encouraging attacks rather than enhancing safety. Those who need to “feel safe” cannot admit this obvious reality lest their belief system come crashing down, so they redouble their efforts, striking out at even imaginary threats and guns.

Understanding this sort of thinking, it is easy to realize that such people think nothing of applying a zero tolerance policy prohibiting actual firearms to not only toys bearing a slight resemblance to firearms, but to depictions of firearms and even imaginary weapons. Thus have elementary-aged children been punished for pointing fingers at each other and fighting imaginary heroic battles for mankind. Thus is childhood warped and wrenched from children.

Some of these bizarre incidents are the direct result of human confusion or incompetence. School systems have multiple levels of management that theoretically can avoid abuses in student discipline.  Take the case of the five year-old girl who dared think of blowing bubbles on her friend and herself.  Even if her teacher could not tell the difference between a Hello Kitty bubble gun — a toy the girl left at home — and a real weapon, and even if she could not tell the difference between five year olds playing and a threat of serious bodily harm or death, what’s the principal’s excuse? What’s the excuse of the assistant superintendent and the superintendent and the members of the school board?

Fortunately, in most of these incidents, thunderous public scorn and the threats of attorneys were sufficient to undo suspensions and other punishments that should have never taken place.  However, unless and until the voters of those — and every — school district take affirmative action to see that no student is punished for behaving like an entirely normal child, and that progressive indoctrination of our youngest and most impressionable children is brought to an abrupt and final halt, generations of Americans may grow up believing that so much as thinking about the “weapons” generations have harmlessly used in play since before the foundation of the republic is a crime against the state.

On the other hand, perhaps that’s exactly what the state wants.

Gun Grabbing Lies

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell

March 5, 2013 by Brandon Smith 

PHOTOS.COM

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2^ndAmendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2^nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.

The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.

In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”

Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.

Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2^ndAmendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:

In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys.

Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball? Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very badly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous in their cause that they spout baseless conclusions in the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.

Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer who was basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).

Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.

Blodget then makes these three points:

First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.

The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident.

To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that theNew York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.

Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.

The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.

The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.

Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)

Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?

Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?

The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.

By using this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.

Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed.” The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago).

Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.

He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey did not contradict the Kleck study:

I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he carefully dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.

Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.

The most enticing motive for them is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshippers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to destroy their skewed arguments with ease. And they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.

Wealth Distribution in US

A friend of mine suggested that we let everyone see the video that is included in the following link: http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=2&c=la3

Wealth distribution is tricky as it relies upon facts and interpretation of them.  We welcome comments and look forward to hearing from each of you and getting your view of the issue.

Conservative Tom

‘COMING AFTER THE STANDARD SHOTGUN’: COLO. GUN BILL THE ‘MOST EXTREME’ PROPOSED FIREARMS LAW

Mar. 2, 2013 11:30am Madeleine Morgenstern

• 221
• 1.1K
• 12
• 0
• 245

Image source: KCNC-TV

A bill making its way through the Colorado state Capitol could outlaw the best-selling hunting shotgun in the state.

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy told KCNC-TV.

The bill, aimed at banning high-capacity ammunition, has already passed the House and has support from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. If it’s signed into law, it will also seriously limit shotguns used by most hunters in the state, according to the station.

“Hundreds of thousands of pheasant hunters are probably going to be carrying around a gun they won’t be able to replace after July 1 this year,” Brophy told KCNC.

In a state that’s seen two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history — Aurora and Columbine — Brophy said there’s a section of the bill that defines a high-capacity magazine as one that can hold or be converted to hold more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells.

“This is where shotgun shells go inside this tube here,” Brophy demonstrated. “You can screw this part off the top and screw on an extender to this tube to allow it to hold more than eight rounds. It is readily convertible, which by definition in the bill, makes the whole thing a high-capacity magazine…we just might not be able to legally purchase a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun.”

Colorado has several gun bills pending in the state. According to the Denver Post, Vice President Joe Biden called some Democratic lawmakers in the midst of the debate last month and said it would “send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills.”

“The law is specific as of July 1. You can keep it, but only if you maintain continuous possession of it,” Brophy told KCNC. “If it breaks, you can’t give to a gunsmith even to fix it. You can’t hand it to your son to use. It’s all now outlawed because of this 1224, the bill that Governor Hickenlooper says he’s going to sign…this is most extreme thing anybody’s ever done related to firearms.”

Democratic lawmakers told the station they are currently working on an amendment to address the issue, to be presented in a committee hearing Monday.

(h/t Drudge Report)