Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Lies Liberals Tell

From: Right To Bear Blog

The Mass Shooting Liberals Are Desperate To Cover Up

38912372_sEvery single time we see a “mass shooting” here on American soil the media picks up on it like a hound dog to a scent and then runs with it until they’ve used every last inch of the story for their purposes.
It’s their M.O.
Find a tragic story involving guns, and then make sure everyone in America is exposed to their message. Which is obviously “Guns kill people, so we need more gun control so we can prevent mass shootings.”
Liberals often point to other countries like Australia as the benchmark for success when it comes to gun confiscation reducing mass shootings.
But what happens when a story appears to run against their point of view?
They bury it.
Bearing Arms shows how NPR managed to falsely report on an Australian mass shooting and what they did when they were called out on it:
You can fool some people all of the time, and most people some of the time, but a University of California-Berkeley psychology professor seems to think that she can fool NPR readers all of the time.
While attempting to support the Obama Administration’s new push to force mandatory gun buybacks, Tania Lombrozo made the following claim about Australia’s gun laws.
Last year, President Obama suggested the U.S. follow Australia’s example by adopting a strict gun ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since it enacted the legislation in 1996.
I quickly called Lombrozo and NPR on her claim.

Lombrozo then asked for evidence.
I provided it.

At Monash, seven people were shot (two fatally) by a murderous student who was armed with multiple handguns. All six handguns were acquired legally.  The attacker was later determined to be mentally ill. The Hectorville siege that saw seven people shot (three fatally) was conducted with a shotgun that was legal under Australian law. The attacker in this incident was also found to be mentally ill. The Hunt family murderswere likewise carried out with a legally-owned shotgun. The murderer in this instance was thought to be highly stressed due to his wife’s head injury.
Lombrozo’s response was to shift goalposts.

Lombrozo has since gone silent, which you might expect from a psychology professor attempt to cover up the fact that crazy people were behind two of the three mass shootings she wants to whitewash over.
Apparently, she really believes that she can make false claims in support of Obama’s mandatory gun buyback/confiscation agenda and get away with it.
It remains to be seen if NPR will let her.
It’s the oldest trick in the book and liberals love to use it.
They constantly invent statistics about guns, cherry pick data, and use studies to support their confirmation bias about how gun control will reduce violence.
BUT, when a study by the NRA comes out that shows the more guns we own the safer we are they say nothing about it…EVER.
More times than can be counted has the mainstream media ignored outright the statistical evidence pointing to societies with more guns being safer.
But in the long run they don’t care about safety, they care about making us impotent. That much is obvious.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Biden In '16?

082715

Are People So Stupid That They Can't See What Is Happening? The Market Is In For A Major Correction!

September swoon? Stocks pummeled as global growth worries mount

Yahoo Finance 
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during the morning of August 27, 2015
.
View photo
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during the morning of August 27, 2015 (AFP Photo/Andrew Burton)
U.S. stocks kicked off September with heavy losses on the heels of the worst month for Wall Street since 2012 amid growing concerns over the strength of the global economy.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) dropped 427 points, or 2.7%, to 16101.8, the S&P 500 (^GSPC) fell 51.9 points, or 2.6%, to 1920.3 and the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) tumbled 116.3 points, or 2.4%, to 4660.2.

The broad S&P 500 tumbled 6.26% in August, its worst month since May 2012. The rout erased some $5 trillion in global equity market value as traders ditched stocks.

On Tuesday, traders cited swelling anxiety over thestate of two of the world's biggest economies as reasons for steep losses.

The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing PMI dropped to 51.1 in August from 52.7 the month prior, compared to expectations of a much shallower drop to 52.6. The reading indicates U.S. factory growth slowed down in August to the lowest level since August 2013.

Michael Montgomery, U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, reckons the rest of the year could be a "bumpy ride" for American manufacturers. However, Montgomery notes factory activity has "stalled," and probably won't deteriorate or improve much before next year.

Meanwhile, China's official PMI reading suggests the manufacturing sector in the world's second-biggest economy contracted at the swiftest pace since August 2012 last month. Separately, the Caixin PMI gauge for August pointed to the heaviest drop in factory activity in more than six years.

"Another day, another sign of weakness from the Chinese economy," wrote Joshua Mahony, a market analyst at London-based IG, in a note to clients, adding, "the importance of today's announcement is that the slowdown is hitting the larger state-backed firms who typically take longer to feel the pain."

The gloomy data out of China ignited a selloff in Asia, where the Shanghai Composite (000001.SS) dropped 1.2%. The Japanese Nikkei 225 (^N225) tumbled 3.8%, while the MSCI's index of Asia-Pacific performance excluding Japan dipped 1.9%.

The selling ricocheted into Europe, with the Euro Stoxx 50, a measure of large-capitalization European stocks, sinking 3.2%. Benchmark indexes in Germany and France were both down more than 2%, while the UK's FTSE 100 (^FTSE) plummeted more than 3%.

Commodities took a beating as well. U.S. crude oil prices (CLV15.NYM) collapsed 6.2% to $46.20 a barrel, extending 2015 losses to 13.3%. Wholesale New York Harbor gasoline prices tumbled 9 cents, or 5.1%, to $1.41 a gallon.

In metals, copper, seen as an economic bellwether, melted by 1%, to $2.31 a pound. Gold (GCZ15.CMX) drifted slightly higher to $1,138.40 a troy ounce.
Digging into U.S. markets, every major S&P 500 sector was in the red. The worst performers were energy, financials, materials and industrials -- all segments that tend to be linked closely to economic performance. Consumer staples, health-care and utilities, seen as defensive plays, avoided the worst selling.

Traders also took shelter in U.S. Treasury bonds. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell 0.028 percentage point to 2.172% as traders bid-up the asset. Bond yields move in the opposite direction of prices, so as traders buy, the yield falls.

The CBOE's VIX, sometimes called Wall Street's fear gauge, jumped 8%, adding to a year-to-date surge of close to 60%.
Eyes on the Fed
As the September meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee looms, investors have been paying ever-closer attention to comments by key Federal Reserve officials. On Tuesday, Boston Fed chief Eric Rosengren noted in a speech in New York that while the labor market improved enough to satisfy policymakers, data have not "been as clear-cut" on whether the rate of inflation will move up to the Fed's 2% target in a "reasonable time frame."
Rosengren, who is currently a non-voting alternate on the FOMC, said slowing in foreign economies, stock-market volatility and sliding commodity prices could keep the U.S. economy from growing quickly enough to boost the pace of inflation.
Over the weekend, vice chair Stanley Fischer said there is "good reason to believe" inflation will indeed move higher, and that the Fed needn't wait for inflation to hit 2% in order for the Fed to hike rates for the first time in nearly a decade.
Fed funds futures pointed to an implied probability of about 32% that the Fed will boost rates in September, according to data from the CME Group. Meanwhile, a recent poll by Bloomberg indicated Wall Street economists were essentially evenly split on whether to expect a September liftoff.

For Those Worried About Alaska's Coast Line, This Article Should Calm Your Fears.

Obama administration greenlights Shell drilling off Alaska’s Arctic coast

   

The Obama administration gave Shell the go-ahead Wednesday to drill two oil exploration wells in the Chukchi Sea about 70 miles off Alaska’s Arctic coast, a decision environmental groups decried as posing a grave risk to the area’s marine life.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued approval for the wells, but the agency limited the drilling to the top sections of wells and prohibited Shell from drilling into oil-bearing zones. The conditional approval could be altered if Shell can repair an ice breaking vessel before the short open water season ends in late September.
The permits are the latest twist in a long-running saga. Shell spent $2.1 billion in 2008 to purchase leases from the Interior Department to explore for oil in the Chukchi Sea and it has spent about $5 billion more since then. But it has been mired in lawsuits and a regulatory process complicated by a series of mishaps that have damaged vessels required for the drilling program.
The most recent mishap sidelined the Fennica, one of two icebreakers in Shell’s Arctic fleet and the only one carrying equipment designed to fit over a damaged well in case of a blowout. Shell must have the equipment nearby before it can penetrate areas suspected of holding oil or natural gas.
On July 3 on its way to the drill site, the Fennica scraped into a shallow shoal and tore a 39-inch by 2-inch gash in its hull. The Coast Guard is investigating, but some areas along the ship’s route could be shallower than shown in surveys conducted decades ago.
“We remain committed to operating in a safe, environmentally responsible manner and look forward to evaluating what could potentially become a national energy resource base,” Shell spokesman Kelly op de Weegh said.
But Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, said of the administration’s announcement Wednesday: “This is a tremendously disappointing decision that poses a serious, long-term threat to the fragile environment of the Arctic Ocean.” She added, “there are two things certain about offshore drilling in the Arctic: things will go wrong, and the oil industry isn’t ready.
Since the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, environmental groups have urged President Obama to block Shell’s plans, especially given the remoteness of the Chukchi Sea from Coast Guard and other vessels.
League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said in a statement that any Arctic Ocean drilling ”is incompatible with President Obama’s strong record on and desire to address climate change.”
Speaking to reporters during a Camp David press conference in May, Obama emphasized that when it came to Arctic drilling, “nobody is more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers” given his experience with the Gulf of Mexico spill. He added that Shell had to “revamp its approach” based on stricter federal standards his officials authored.
In 2013, the Interior Department reviewed Shell’s abbreviated 2012 drilling program. Shell struggled to obtain certification of its containment vessel, the Arctic Challenger; the Arctic Challenger had trouble deploying its containment dome; and one of Shell’s two drilling rigs, the Kulluk, ran aground off Kodiak Island in December on its way to a warm water port.
Interior ordered a third party audit of Shells’ management culture and systems, but the department has turned down freedom of information requests filed by environmental groups seeking copies of the audit, Epstein said.
The Fennica will arrive soon for repairs in Portland. Shell said the ship should reach the Chukchi Sea before drilling penetrates formations the company hopes contain large oil reserves.
In 2012, Shell drilled in an oil prospect called Burger A, but the time it took Shell to meet permitting standards and an unusually icy summer meant it did not time to drill deep enough to enter oil or gas zones, so Shell plugged and secured the wells.
This summer, the company said it intends hopes to explore in other areas—known as Burgers J and V—based on “an improved and clear picture of the subsurface structure.”
But Epstein said that the wells cannot be drilled at the same time because the Fish and Wildlife Service has barred companies from drilling simultaneously less than 15 miles apart because the noise from drilling could harm walrus populations that often in the area. Shell’s wells are only nine miles apart.
Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

Obama Part Three?

Most of you who read this blog know that we believe that Obama will be running for at least one more term as President. He has two "placeholders" who have been very successful keeping other Democrats from coming into the fray, those being Hillary Clinton and potentially Joe Biden, his vice president.(The Democrats will never select a Socialist.)

How could he do it?  We have talked about the lack of "standing" that all of us have when it comes to the Courts and it being the procedure used by Obama's lawyers to defeat all cases brought against the President when he was asked to prove that he was a "natural born citizen" which is one of the requirements of the Constitution.

We also believe that he might institute martial law in an effort to prevent elections from occurring.  The "Black Lives Matter" movement and his responses to Baltimore and Ferguson are examples of his attempt to ratchet up racial tensions in this country. Could he be planning race riots in the fall of 2016?  One can only guess.

What about  the importing of Syrian and other middle east Muslims? Why are they all being resettled in Red States?  Is this an effort to water down these  Republican strongholds?  Or could Obama be planning to use these individuals as "poll watchers" who would intimidate Americans from voting against him?  What would the poll workers do if a number of these foreign immigrants started to question voters about their vote and suggest that they vote for The President? Could that throw the entire election out if it went against him?  Is that the plan?

Does he care if 70% of the population would be against him running for a third term?  It did not bother him  that that was the way we felt about ObamaCrapCare or the Dream Act.  So why should he care about this. The answer is he won't!

We believe that Obama has a plan and what it  will be revealed just before the Democratic Convention where in a repeat of history, the donkeys will have no candidate and will turn to Obama as they did to FDR in 1940.  He will hesitate at first, as he did with the Dream Act, but then will be "persuaded" to do what is in the "best interests of the country" to run for a third term. The news media will celebrate it as a great victory for common sense. After all he is one of the youngest men ever to  be President!

The weak willed, spineless Republicans will jump on television and radio, complain loudly, demand that he not run but in the end will do NOTHING. Citizen patriots will file suit but will be turned down as they have no "standing" to  bring the action. Should the case reach the Supreme Court the four liberal "dwarfs" will be joined by Chief Justice Roberts to defeat any case.

And folks, OBAMA WILL WIN.  Whether it is through voter intimidation, voter fraud, outright lies or some legal maneuver, he will  be the second President to serve a third term. He and Michelle will be around for a long time.

However, the worst thing for all of us is what will happen when he is inaugurated. He will explain exactly what he meant by "fundamentally change America."  If you thought that all of his actions and missteps were part of what he meant. You would be wrong.

Early on in his first term, he told us and the world that America was a Muslim country.  Most of us scratched our head, searched our brains and could not come up with what he really meant. It made NO sense to us.  He was telegraphing his goal. America would become Muslim.

We will find out what he meant either in the first couple weeks of his Administration or at his inauguration.  It is our belief that at this point, he will take his Presidential directives to a new low point. He will declare America to be Muslim. Among other things, he will direct all non-Muslims to pay tributes to the local mosque or go to jail.  He will use the IRS to enforce the rules.

He would eliminate the tax free status of churches, temples and synagogues.  However, mosques would retain their tax benefits. Legal holidays such as Christmas will be eliminated and only Muslim holidays will be allowed. Shariah law would be instituted and the current court system would be phased out over a period of years. The Constitution would be kept but interpreted by Islamic jurists.

America will have been "fundamentally changed."

This has to be his goal otherwise his abuse of Israel and his favoring of radical Islamic threats (i.e. ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood) make no sense. His and Kerry's weak approach to Iran in the nuclear discussions can only have one rational reason? It was not to curry favor with those in the Islamic world.  He wants the US to be part of that world.

Of course, we could be completely wrong. That Obama won't run for a third term and that he will not further "fundamentally change America."  We hope that we are just one turn away from the loony bin, however, his entire Administration has focused on bringing the US to a point where this all makes sense.

So, please tell us.  Is this the end of the US as we know it or.....

Conservative Tom







Monday, August 31, 2015

Another Texas-Mexico War Is Brewing. It's All Over Illegal Immigrant Anchor Babies.

Mexico Warns Texas on Not Issuing Birth Certificates to Illegals' Babies

Image: Mexico Warns Texas on Not Issuing Birth Certificates to Illegals' Babies(Wire Services) Illegal alien with infant.
By Cathy Burke   |   Friday, 28 Aug 2015 09:44 PM
The refusal of some Texas counties to issue birth certificates for children born to undocumented parents could threaten the state's relationship with Mexico, the Mexican government warns.

The notice comes in a brief filed in support of illegal immigrant parents who are suing Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children – even after providing ID cards, known as "matricula," issued by the Mexican Consulate, Fox News Latino reports. 
The Texas Tribune reports some Texas county registrars won't accept the consulate-issued identification because it isn't considered reliable.

Some Texas counties were accepting the consulate ID cards until recently, when they were ordered to stop by the Texas state health services department, the Tribune reports.

"[It] not only jeopardizes their dignity and well-being, but could threaten the unique relationship between Mexico and Texas," the Mexican government said in a brief tied to a lawsuit filed against the state by Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.
Latest News Update

The suit against Texas was filed on behalf of six children who are U.S. citizens and their undocumented parents, who are from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala, the Texas Tribune reports. The families argue Texas is violating the 14th amendment, among other things.

"Our argument isn't 'yes matrícula, no matrícula,'" attorney Jennifer Harbury, who represents the families, told the Tribune. "The argument is 'what will you take that people can actually get?' They have to take something. [The children] were born here. They are U.S. citizens."

The brief also claims denying the children U.S. birth certificates blocks their claims to Mexican citizenship; a child born to Mexican parents has that right but must show proof of identity, the Tribune reports.

Related Stories:


© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.