Police Targets--Elderly, Kids, Pregnant Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distressing is the only word we can use!

Conservative Tom

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

Shooting Children, Pregnant Women And Elderly People Should Require Hesitation

February 21, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

Police officers in the field face an array of threats to their safety on a daily basis; sometimes these threats warrant the use of deadly force against a suspect. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet the civilian public has learned in recent years that many officers throughout the Nation are quick to abuse power or jump the gun, so to speak, in using deadly force with alarming frequency.

Reports flooded the Internet yesterday about a series of paper targets produced by Law Enforcement Targets Inc. that depict non-traditional threats that law enforcement officers may encounter in the field. Below are images of the company’s targets included in the series “No More Hesitation”:

The company has secured more than $5 million in Federal money, mostly from the Department of Defense ($3,124,371) and the Department of Homeland Security ($1,913,489). The company also does business with the Department of Energy ($150,877), the Department of State ($133,812) and the Department of Veterans Affairs ($51,822).

The Moral Lib­eral’s senior edi­tor, T.F. Stern, a retired police offi­cer, penned a column pointing out that the “No More Hesitation” targets must exist for a reason and that the reason likely amounts to demand, as more law enforcement agencies adopt the mantra that anyone who isn’t a cop is a threat.

Stern laments:

There’s something wrong, seriously wrong here.  If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home…then what kind of society have we become?  How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?…

… Odd as it may sound coming from an old retired cop, if police recognition skills, the red flags that alert to danger were delayed for a moment, so be it; I’d rather get shot than develop the attitude that all or even most of my neighbors were a constant threat.

Stern’s mention of reaction time was probably in reference to a statement issued by Law Enforcement Targets Inc. to Reason, the publication that first broke the story: “This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served.”

The company also confirmed that law enforcement agencies have requested “No More Hesitation” targets specifically in the past.

While it is reasonable to believe that, over the course of a career, a police officer could encounter a pregnant shooter in a nursery or a boy younger than 10 with a weapon, it isn’t highly likely.

A report entitled “A Critical Analysis of Police Shootings Under Ambiguous Circumstances”published by The Police Policy Studies Council in 2008 gives some insight to the “critical microbehavioral issues that seem to have a significant cumulative effect on an officer’s decision to employ deadly force.” One interesting, and predictable, caveat in the report is that police often decide whether to shoot based upon visual characteristics of a suspect:

Officers/deputies are more likely to shoot when the subject is young (rather than old), in punk dress (rather than business dress)…

So, training officers to identify children, the elderly and pregnant women in the same threat category as young men in punk garb could have an impact on their willingness to open fire on members of the former group whether armed or not.

In a study conducted as part of the report, which involved using a video screen portraying actors — either armed or unarmed — turning in an officer’s direction, it is revealed why shaving reaction time almost to the point of “shoot first, ask questions later” can be a bad idea:

…[S]ince the officer’s decision to fire at the suspect predates the subject being shot .25 seconds or more, the officer can (and easily does) shoot the suspect as he/she is raising his/her hands into a “surrender” position. This was a frequent and somewhat unanticipated outcome in many of the shootings that involved “unarmed” suspects; suspects getting shot while “surrendering.” The officer typically has 1/3 of a second or less (from a critical juncture in each scenario) to decide whether or not to employ deadly force, and then to apply that force, before he/she risks being “shot.”

The results of the study point out what is already common knowledge: Regardless of an officer’s oath to “serve and protect,” the basic human instinct of self-preservation takes precedence in the face of a perceived threat.

The dangers faced by officers in the field should not be discounted, nor, though, should common sense in the name of faster draw time. Take, for instance, the overwhelming number of recent reports of educators throughout the Nation becoming shrieking alarmists at the sight of elementary-school students having pretend shootouts or bringing toy guns (even Hello Kitty bubble guns) to school in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting.

What happens if school officials call police the next time they suspect a child of having a toy gun? What happens if the child is wearing a “punk” T-shirt and acting defiant? And what happens if an officer trained to shoot a child without hesitation arrives on scene?

It may sound like a series of ridiculous considerations. But many people would likely think it ridiculous for officers to need to train with targets portraying pregnant women, children and elderly people in the first place.

Scary Thoughts About America's Future

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Tom

America over a barrel

By Douglas J. Hagmann

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

All is well in the land of Oz

America is in serious financial trouble, and events on the immediate horizon will forever change our lifestyle. However, if you are like me, trying to convince your friends at work, your neighbors, or perhaps even your spouse that this is true is a formidable (if not impossible) task.  They might counter your warnings by pointing to the people walking out of retail stores with big ticket items, or if they are trying to appear more astute, cite the positive gains in the stock market while snickering at you for buying silver at nearly $50 per ounce, while it now hovers at $30 per ounce. You might have even been called a doomsayer or conspiracy nut for buying storable food or extra items for your pantry. However (if their ego permits it), these will be the same people who will turn to you for answers and practical advice when the financial house of cards falls to the floor.

What people are seeing is not reality, but their perception of reality as a result of the conditioning and brainwashing by our elected leaders and the complicit corporate media. The American public has been conditioned and brainwashed en masse into believing a lie.

It is an accepted mantra that the bigger the lie, the more readily people will believe it. That is the case in which we find ourselves today. The entire world (especially Americans and the West) is in for a “crude awakening.” In our current state, perception is not reality. We are being subjected to lie upon lie that feeds our normalcy bias. “Things will never get as bad as you say, at least not here in America,” is a common statement that you might be hearing. Others will argue that intervention by our government will prevent any significant financial disaster. They don’t understand that it is the elements within our own government (or elements working in conjunction with our elected leaders) who are actually responsible for the financial crisis that we will soon face.

What is the truth?

The truth is that America is a “captured operation.” It has been captured from within. The Democrat-Republican, right-left paradigm is nothing more than an erroneous perception that permits the illusion of dueling agendas, when, in fact, there is only one. For example, how else would one explain the continuity of agenda between George W. Bush and Barack Obama?

If one accepts the fact that America is a captured operation, then it would be reasonable to ask, “Captured by who or what?” And, “What is the end-game objective of those controlling the puppet strings? Who are the puppet masters?”

To gain insight and answer these questions, it is logical to follow the investigative adage, “follow the money,” and to understand that “he who owns the gold makes the rules.” To gain further understanding of our precarious position, it is also important to have a basic understanding of the U.S. dollar.

Since the dollar was taken off the gold standard on August 15, 1971 by then-President Richard Nixon, many believe that it is not backed by anything of value and is nothing more than a promise on a piece of paper. Technically, that would appear to be true. But in reality, the current stability of the U.S. dollar is backed by oil, or the promise of the free and unrestricted access to the flow of oil.

There is a lot of history about our economic system that should be known and understood, including the creation of the privately owned cartel of central banks that was made legal under the Federal Reserve Act and is now chaired by Ben Bernanke. That history, however, would be better served by a more extensive column at another time. Currently at issue is how things are about to play out for the average Americans who are straddled by a growing and oppressive debt, to the point that we have shamelessly permitted our own children, and the future generations of America, to be sold into financial slavery.

As Americans, we are over a barrel. If you look closely at the fine print on that barrel, you will see that the barrel is fully owned by the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We are the puppets of the Saudis, lock, stock and barrel. But there is more.

Confluence of events

If you find it difficult to accept that we are operating as a “branch office” of the Saudis, then consider our current financial and geopolitical situation, and work backward. Consider the meteoric rise to power by Barack Hussein Obama. Do you really believe that he rose to power on the merits of his political career as a junior senator from Illinois? What about the funding his campaign received from foreign donations, that was noted as an anomaly, yet not audited to the point of precise origin. Could not much of that money be traced to Saudi Arabia, or to specific elements acting on their behalf?

How about Obama’s education, including (but not limited to) his acceptance into Harvard? Who footed the bill? A bit of investigative research points to funding that originated from a very wealthy Saudi prince. But at what cost, or with what strings?

There are many more examples of his Saudi ties, and his capitulation to their agenda of a pan-Islamic state via the Muslim Brotherhood. These are  available to anyone who is willing to perform the research.

The most significant bit of evidence of all, however, relates to Obama’s actions as the President of the United States, especially in one specific event: Benghazi.

Although one has to look no further than his war against developing a domestic oil drilling and refining program, the most blatant evidence of Saudi control can be found in his actions related to the September 11, 2012 murderous attacks in Benghazi. It is here that the curtain shielding the truth is pulled back, and some very important pieces of evidence become exposed. The events that took place in Benghazi reveal that the United States is providing the military muscle, the sweat and blood of our men and women in and out of uniform, to accomplish the objectives of the Saudis. It was a military extension of the much celebrated Arab Spring, which (contrary to media accounts) is a Saudi plan of expansion.

It is Benghazi that provides a glimpse into the truth, and is the reason that the Obama regime has viciously fought against any attempts at getting to the truth. Truth will reveal that America, to further the agenda of the Saudis, was involved in the largest arms supplying operation in history. We were providing the anti-Assad rebels with the arms and technical assistance to overthrow Assad, destabilize Syria, and (like Egypt) install a puppet of the Muslim Brotherhood. For detailed information on Benghazi, I would urge readers to review my investigative series published on this site.

At this point, you might ask what this has to do with our domestic financial situation and the coming collapse of the dollar. Again, we must look at the larger picture.

What is the end-game scenario?

What everyone has been witnessing, but failing to understand, is a geopolitical chess game being played by the globalist power brokers, or the international central bankers. Saudi Arabia is using the assets of the U.S. military, and building their pan-Islamic Kingdom on the blood and tears of our men and women. The Saudis are also instruments of the globalists, who are working overtime to implement a global currency and a world power structure.

This is the brainchild of decades and generations of planning by an elite group of people who have the money and power to restructure the world. They are the members of the various societies no one wants to talk about, or no one wants to admit exist. Their seat of power is located in a single square mile in London. They control the wealth of the globe.

In order for them to be able to complete their plan of global governance, the United States must cease to exist as a Constitutional Republic and a viable military force. Since these elites are unable to do it by military might, they have planned and plotted, for at least a generation, to infiltrate our government with their own. If that sounds too outlandish to accept, then simply look at the many events over the last century through today. Our President is Barack Hussein Obama, a man who has yet to prove his Constitutional eligibility (and no one in Congress is willing to press the issue). We have an impotent Congress, stacked federal courts, and a draconian Homeland Security apparatus that appears to be gearing up for war. Against who?

We are witnessing the end game scenario beginning to play out. An expedient method to collapse the U.S. dollar would be to interrupt (or even threaten to interrupt) the free flow of oil, without having the ability to drill and refine domestically. Since the only commodity holding up the dollar is oil, what would that do to our domestic economy?

Considering that this condition has existed through multiple administrations, does this not indicate some level of complicity by Obama’s predecessors, simply by the continuity of agenda? What about the press? They have been absent and impotent as well, failing to dig deep into these issues. Instead, they provide sound bites, and just enough truth to thinly veil the lies it covers.

A financial collapse would certainly result in a societal collapse, at which point we would see violence across the country within days. Our food supply would be interrupted, and stores would be emptied in hours. Before stability can be restored, many will die. Those who have not been fooled by the agenda of the globalists will personally experience the reason why our domestic security force (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been buying ammunition and weapons, and hardening their assets.

Meanwhile, there is an aggressive push to shred the Constitution and disarm law-abiding American citizens. The obedient, lapdog media is complicit in this as well, redefining the purpose of the Second Amendment to a mind-numbed public.

The confluence of events we are witnessing (from gun control to our foreign policies) is not by accident, but is the result of much planning. To those with discernment, the collapse of the dollar is one part of a larger plan of global governance. The lives lost within America will be collateral damage welcomed by the evil and insidious.

It’s not if, but when.

A Different View of Large-Capacity Magazines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be Scared, Be Very Scared.

Conservative Tom

Yes, People ‘Need’ Large-Capacity Magazines

February 7, 2013 by Bob Livingston 

SCREENSHOT

Violent, thieving mobs — called flash mobs because they spring up almost instantaneously, loot and ransack a business and disperse within a minute or two — have been seen across the country over the past several years. Not surprisingly, they’ve now made their way into New York City.

Newsstand and convenience store owners in New York say the mobs of 20, 30, 40 or more are hitting their establishments regularly, stealing merchandise, damaging property and injuring customers.

“They assemble, they do whatever it is they’re going to do, and then they disassemble in a matter minutes. By the time somebody recognizes what is happening or is injured, if the police are able to respond, it is slow,” Jon Shane, assistant professor of criminal justice at John Jay College told CBS New York.

Raj Shmara owns a newsstand at Broadway at 55th Street. Shmara said his newsstand has been targeted seven different times by mobs of teens. During an attack just last week, the kids threw a bottle at an employee who had to be hospitalized. Watching a video of the mob attack is frightening. Dozens of youths crawl over one another like a pack of dogs scuffling over one food bowl.

New York business owners are trying to “protect themselves” by installing surveillance cameras because they say they aren’t getting any help from New York police.

And, of course, thanks to the recently passed New York gun control legislation, New York business owners can’t really protect themselves. Scary-looking black semi-automatic personal defense weapons with large magazines are now banned in the city because the State’s government decided no one “needs” a weapon with a large-capacity magazine.

A gun now legal in New York with a magazine holding only seven rounds wouldn’t be sufficient to take out a third of some of those mobs. But a store owner holding an AR-15 with a 30-round mag and another at his side would serve as a great deterrent to a mob of 20, 30 or 40 thugs.

Obama Trip To Israel--Its Meaning?

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

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

The international media is speculating on Obama’s visit scheduled for late March. The argument is that he would not come unless he gets some breakthrough, that is, some Israeli concession, and he wouldn’t leave happy unless he received one.

So what would this concession be? The most likely candidate would be a freeze on constructing building within existing settlements, as Israel gave him three years ago. At that time, despite a ten-month freeze, the Palestinian Authority only came to talks at the last minute, offered nothing, and then quickly demanded another freeze. In other words, Israel did precisely what Obama asked and got nothing in return, either from his government or the Palestinians.

Actually, it is not technically true to say “nothing.” Secretly, the U.S. government promised to accept that Israel could annex “settlement blocs,” (a promise originally made by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush) that is keep the largest existing settlements near the border, in exchange for territorial swaps in a peace agreement, and to continue building in east Jerusalem.

What happened? A few months later, a visiting Vice President Joe Biden threw a tantrum about an announced zoning board decision that at some future point Israel might build in pre-1967 Jordanian-ruled territory. In effect, that was a violation of the agreement.

Then, while not explicitly going back on the settlement bloc agreement without notifying Israel, Obama made a major speech in which he put the emphasis on Israel’s return to the pre-1967 borders (that is, giving up the settlement blocs), though he did leave the door ajar for territorial swaps. That was not breaking the pledge but certainly undermined it.

After doing what Obama wanted and then getting little or nothing in exchange, Israel is now faced with claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never made any concessions to get negotiations going. After going along with Obama, it is now said in the United States that he tried to undermine Obama or didn’t cooperate.

And after the Palestinian Authority repeatedly killed negotiations—even after Obama announced in 2010 that they would begin shortly at Camp David and Netanyahu agreed—it is a mainstay of mass media coverage that Netanyahu is responsible for the failure of negotiations to happen.

A friend joked that Netanyahu should change his first name from Benjamin to “Hard-line” since that’s the way he’s usually presented in the Western mass media.

Thus, Israeli cynicism should be—if people knew the factors behind it—understandable. After all, the sum total of international wisdom on the now-dead (but pretended to be alive) “peace process” is that this means Israel giving up things and getting nothing in return.

Yet Israel is prepared to go along with Obama again in some fashion. Why? Because it is necessary to preserve the strong relationship with the United States. Obama will be president for the next four years and some help from him is needed on the Iran nuclear issue, the likely growing threat from Egypt, military aid, and other issues.

That is political reality.

At the same time, though, the idea—again, prevalent in mass media coverage—that Netanyahu must “moderate” to form a government is not true. First, a very important lesson: Ignore everything said by Israeli politicians and media during the coalition-forming period because it is invariably misleading. This is what experience has shown virtually without exception.

Now, Netanyahu’s basic choice is to bring together at least two of the following three parties: The traditional liberal Yesh Atid led by Yair Lapid; the Sephardic religious Shas, and the right-wing Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi, led by Naftali Bennett. This is like the story of how you get the fox, the chicken, and the grain across a river without something getting eaten. It is very difficult.

Yesh Atid, led by Yair Lapid, has called for Netanyahu to work hard to get talks with the Palestinians going again. This has been treated as some major move of pressure. Of course not. That’s what Lapid is going to say and should say. And Netanyahu should also say—as he has done hundreds of times in the last four years—that he wants to get negotiations going.

That does not deal, however, with how many unilateral concessions Israel is willing to give to do so and whether the Palestinian Authority—now believing it is victorious from having the U.N. recognize it as a state—would go along. Everyone knows this. So to say that Israel should try to get negotiations going again is equivalent to someone in America saying that it is important to improve the economy.

Yet the reality of coalition negotiations is this: Lapid doesn’t like Bennett and vice-versa; Lapid and Bennett don’t like Shas; Netanyahu doesn’t like Bennett and knows that adding him would create international costs. And by the way, would Bennett enter a government that started out by announcing a long freeze in construction?

So it isn’t as easy as mainstream conventional wisdom makes it seem.

It is also suggested the P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas might actually give up something to get negotiations going. Like what? Perhaps giving up law suits against Israel—which is now supposedly occupying the territory of an internationally recognized Palestinian state, allegedly achieved without any agreement with Israel—in the international court.

Well, maybe. But Abbas faces massive political pressure in his society that far exceeds anything Netanyahu faces. What will he get for giving up what he has claimed as a trump card, a great victory? He certainly doesn’t fear pressure from Obama. Unlike Israel, the Palestinians can do anything they want and not face costs or even public criticism from the American president.

In other words, the whole thing isn’t going to work. Obama might come away with just enough to claim some success, a claim that will be echoed in the mass media. But it would be meaningless.

From Israel’s standpoint, however, letting Obama take the bows as a great peacemaker is worthwhile as long as it doesn’t cost too much or involve too much risk. Ironically, because of Obama’s policies and the rising boldness of its enemies and a revolutionary Islamism that feels itself triumphant, Israel is going to need U.S. support a bit more in the coming four years.

Will Washington State Gun Bill Be Model For Nation?

The race to see which state can provide the most onerous, anti-freedom gun control bill is ever accelerating. Washington state's latest entrant allows  police to inspect a gun owners home if he/she has "assault" weapons (whatever that means.) The question in our mind is, what happens if the inspection turns up a violation?  The only answer is confiscation!

So much for those who think this is all about keeping people safe, don't be deceived. This is about eliminating guns from American society and once disarmed, government can do whatever they want to us.  

The "low information" citizens will think getting guns out of society will make it safer, they could not be more wrong. Law abiding citizens will be subjected crime by the knuckle-dragging members of society. 

All the plans to "make us safe" by eliminating guns are Trojan horses meant to deceive us and all should be soundly defeated. If not, all American freedoms will disappear.

Conservative Tom

Washington State Gun Bill Contains Home Inspection Provision

February 20, 2013 by Bob Livingston 

SPECIAL

A Washington State bill would allow sheriffs to conduct home inspections once per year to ensure gun owners are “safely and securely” storing their “assault weapon.”

Gun grabbers love to denigrate 2^ndAmendment supporters by claiming their fear that registration leads to confiscation is hyperbole or simple nuttery. And then there is Washington Senate Bill 5737, an “assault weapons” ban introduced last week.

“They (gun grabbers) always say, ‘We’ll never go house-to-house to take your guns away.’ But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” said Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal.

The “this” he’s referencing is a provision in the bill that would allow sheriffs to conduct home inspections once per year to ensure gun owners are “safely and securely” storing their “assault weapon.”

With the bill, Washington joins the parade of States competing in the biggest gun nanny contest. But clearly, the home inspection issue gives Washington a leg up.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told The Seattle Times. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

When called on the home inspection provision, the bill’s sponsors, Senators Adam Kline and Ed Murray, claimed to be surprised that the provision was in there.

Kline claimed not to have read the eight-page bill closely enough.

“I made a mistake. I frankly should have vetted this more closely,” he said.

Murray said, “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there.” He admitted such a provision would probably be unConstitutional.

He then said an “assault weapons” ban has little chance of passing anyway, so he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.”

This bill makes it clear that if gun grabbers are willing to try to sneak a provision through that calls for inspection, which requires a registry, the natural next step is confiscation for those who don’t meet the arbitrary definition of “safely and securely” storing those weapons.

Obama Master of Media Management

We have always wondered why the news media has been so meek about confronting Obama and in the following post, it appears as if Obama has them buffaloed.  If they give a tough interview, he will not talk to them. If the reporter asks hard questions, he is not called upon any more. So, where is the outrage? Where are the investigative reports that dig Obama's history? Why after being treated badly do they play along?

The answer is that they do not want to hurt their "fellow traveller."  If they go after the President, or any Democrat, they are hurting those people with whom they agree. They absolutely refuse to attack. In other words, they are politically motivated to not do any harm to a Democrat. 

For example, if Jessee Jackson Jr. was a Republican and did the same things of which  the Congressman is accused, there would be blood in the paper. Editorials would scream for his head, investigations would be launched, pictures would be published on his treatment and we would know all about the various gowns that Mrs. Jackson bought with his "ill-gotten" funds. However, everything is very mild. Coverage is favorable and it appears as if he might even avoid jail time. Such hypocritical reporting.

Even though the article reports Politico's are somewhat negative, it is mild in light of Obama's refusal to meet with the Press favoring "the View" and the lack of information coming out of the Administration. It is shameful on both the part of the President and the press.  It is time that we start getting reporting rather than covering for a failed White House.

Conservative Tom

‘OBAMA IS A MASTER AT LIMITING, SHAPING AND MANIPULATING MEDIA COVERAGE’: THE 10 MOST SCATHING REMARKS FROM POLITICO’S ANTI-OBAMA MEDIA COLUMN

Feb. 19, 2013 7:58am Jonathon M. Seidl

• 232
• 3.1K
• 20
• 9
• 192

CHICAGO, IL – FEBRUARY 15: President Barack Obama speaks to students and guests during a visit to Hyde Park Academy High School on February 15, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Getty Images

“President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.”

If anyone asked you where those remarks came from, you’d likely say it was some conservative news outlet or blog. You might even say it was the rant of a Republican pundit.

But you would be wrong on all levels.

That quote is actually the opening line to a scathing, four-page columnby Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen on Politico.

“Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated,” the column continues, offering a defense for the press and placing full blame on the White House. “Instead, the mastery mostly flows from a White House that has taken old tricks for shaping coverage (staged leaks, friendly interviews) and put them on steroids using new ones (social media, content creation, precision targeting). And it’s an equal opportunity strategy: Media across the ideological spectrum are left scrambling for access.”

Still, in the accompanying video version of the story, Vandehei admits that while the critique of Obama being a “puppet master” who pulls strings to get favorable coverage is generally a conservative critique, it is an “accurate one”:

The anger from the press came to a head this past weekend when the press corps wasn’t allowed full access to the president’s golf vacation (read our original story here).”That breached the tradition of the pool ‘holding’ in the clubhouse and often covering — and even questioning — the president on the first and last holes,” Politico explains.

The Politico article is filled with plenty of shots at the president and administration that vowed to be the most transparent. So we’ve included 10 of the most scathing sections that capture just how icy the press relationship has become.

10. President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.

9. “The White House gets away with stuff I would never have dreamed of doing. When I talk to White House reporters now, they say it’s really tough to do business with people who don’t see the need to be cooperative.” — Former Bill Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry

8. The president has shut down interviews with many of the White House reporters who know the most and ask the toughest questions. Instead, he spends way more time talking directly to voters via friendly shows and media personalities. Why bother with The New York Times beat reporter when Obama can go on “The View”?

7. Obama boasted Thursday during a Google+ Hangout from the White House: “This is the most transparent administration in history.” The people who cover him day to day see it very differently.

6. “The way the president’s availability to the press has shrunk in the last two years is a disgrace,” said ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who has covered every president back to Gerald R. Ford. “The president’s day-to-day policy development — on immigration, on guns — is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.” [Emphasis added]

5. But something is different with this White House. Obama’s aides are better at using technology and exploiting the president’s “brand.” They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forums, not just for campaigns, but governing.

4. Conservatives assume a cozy relationship between this White House and the reporters who cover it. Wrong. Many reporters find Obama himself strangely fearful of talking with them and often aloof and cocky when he does. They find his staff needlessly stingy with information and thin-skinned about any tough coverage. He gets more-favorable-than-not coverage because many staffers are fearful of talking to reporters, even anonymously, and some reporters inevitably worry access or the chance of a presidential interview will decrease if they get in the face of this White House. ​[Emphasis added]

3. *The super-safe, softball interview is an Obama specialty. The kid glove interview of Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Steve Kroft of CBS’s “60 Minutes” is simply the latest in a long line of these. Obama gives frequent interviews (an astonishing 674 in his first term, compared with 217 for President George W. Bush), but they are often with network anchors or local TV stations, and rarely with the reporters who cover the White House day to day.

2. * There’s the classic weekend document dump to avoid negative coverage. By our count, the White House has done this nearly two dozen times, and almost always to minimize attention to embarrassing or messy facts. “What you guys call a document dump, we call transparency,” the White House’s Earnest shot back. If that’s the case, the White House was exceptionally transparent during the Solyndra controversy, releasing details three times on a Friday.

1. * While White House officials deny it is intentional, this administration —like its predecessors — does some good old-fashioned bullying of reporters: making clear there will be no interviews, or even questions at press conferences, if aides are displeased with their coverage.

–

A separate video attached to the piece puts together some of Obama’s “softball” interviews:

The entire article is a must-read and can be seen here.

ObamaCare Future Failure Shown in PCIP

The trillions that are going to be spent on ObamaCrapCare (our term for the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare) are going to drown the American economy and in the end, it will fail. In the accompanying article,  we read about the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan that is being closed by the Feds as they are running out of money.

If this program, a precursor to the full ObamaCrapCare (OCC), is failing.  Can we expect anything different from the rest of the program? We think not.  The reasons are that the government cannot run any program efficiently and  the government knows nothing about insurance.

One only has to look at the Post Office which continually runs deficits and  increases the price of mailing a letter annually and Amtrak which also loses money on a daily basis to see the failures of government run enterprises. Both of these services are significantly less complex than health insurance.

On top of the complexity, OCC was written by legislative aides, Obama supporters and without meaningful insurance industry input. It is a political document rather than a prescription to correct what ailed the business.  To expect success is like having an average car driver design a new model. He/she knows how to drive but has no idea how it all should work. For that matter most drivers today don't know how to drive a manual transmission no less how their automatic works. To ask them to design a new model would be ludicrous.

The same goes for health insurance. We know that we want to do to the doctor or hospital and get the treatments that we need, however, to understand all the ins and outs of the system are (for most of us) beyond most of our ability (or desire) to know.  However, it was the novices who designed OCC without understanding or in-depth knowledge of how the pieces work together.

One small example is noteworthy.  For years, it has been the independent health insurance agent who has advised and counseled the business owner or individual on their purchase. Under OCC, there is no place for that advice. Individuals will have to go to the exchange that their state has set up or the Federal exchange and make their choice on a computer program. They will have to educate themselves on deductibles, co-pays, plan options, exclusions and then make a choice of plan. There will not be a professional to guide them through the process. Yes, they earn a commission on the sale, however, if their advice is  bad or they give out false information, they will eventually go out of business.

Under OCC, if the client is totally confused they can go to a "navigator" who will be a non-licensed, non-insurance person who will get two weeks of training and then will help them make their selections.  This person has no financial incentive to give good advice as they will be nameless, faceless government functionaries who will get their paycheck every two weeks regardless if they give good or bad advice. We see this at the IRS which tells its callers that they should NOT depend on the advice they receive from the people who answer the phone. 

Without professional advice, we expect that many people will make mistakes which will cost them dearly. They will apply for the cheapest plan (under OCC that is bronze) which will mean that they will get inferior coverage not understanding that had they paid a few more dollars the benefits would have been considerably better.

Yes, this is one very small part of the OCC debacle, however, when you see it along with the PCIP failure, alarm bells should be sounding loud and clear in your head. This plan WILL NOT work long term and when historians look at it, they will call it one of the biggest ponzi schemes every foisted upon the American people.

Conservative Tom

Feds close PCIP in 23 states

BY RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

FEBRUARY 19, 2013 • REPRINTS

The federal risk pool program is shutting its door.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing financial concerns, the Obama administration has started shutting down the Pre-existingCondition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program.

The administration "has been committed to monitoring PCIP enrollment and spending closely and making necessary adjustments in the program to ensure responsible management of the $5 billion provided by Congress," PCIP director Richard Popper wrote in a memo. "To this end, we are implementing a nationwide suspension of enrollment."

In a teleconference with state counterparts, administration officials said Friday that the PCIP will immediately stop taking new PCIP applications in the 23 states where the federal government administers the program.

States run the PCIP programs in the other states. In those states, consumers may have more time to apply for coverage.

In Wisconsin, for example, residents have until March 2 to apply.

"We're glad this program was here and able to help," said Amie Goldman, who oversees the program in Wisconsin. "I'm certainly disappointed we won't be able to serve everyone who has a need for this coverage."

People already in the PCIP program can keep their coverage, and PCIP enrollees who move to new states can still apply for replacement PCIP coverage, officials said.

PCIP has served more than 135,000 people, including many patients with serious medical problems such as cancer and heart failure.

Overall PCIP enrollment has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.  

The PCIP program had spent about $2.4 billion of its $5 billion in total federal funding on medical claims and about $180 million on administrative costs as of Dec. 31, 2012, federal officials told state officials.

Drafters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) included the PCIP program in PPACA to provide a temporary solution. When PPACA takes full effect Jan. 1, 2014, it is supposed to prohibit health insurers from considering health status when deciding whether to issue coverage. PPACA also will put tight limits on insurers' ability to use health status information in pricing coverage.

The PCIP program is open to people who have had problems getting private insurance because of a medical condition and have been uninsured for at least 6 months. Premiums are supposed to be comparable to the rates that typical healthy people in a state pay.

For middle-aged individuals, the premiums may be several hundred dollars per month.

PPACA calls for the government to provide new health insurance purchase subsidies in 2014. The new subsidies should cut premium costs for many of the people who now have PCIP coverage, officials say.