Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Shame on Obama and US


We treat our troops like disposable Kleenex! If the following story does not make you sick for the victims and angry at the treatment of our troops, you are asleep!

It is clear that Obama and his friends (even upper military brass) have decided that treating our returning troops and those injured at Fort Hood is too expensive and the return on investment does not make sense. We say hooey! When you sent troops into harms way or it comes to you as Major Hasan did, you need to get these guys and gals back on their feet and return them to a healthy state. To do other wise is unconscionable.

These people are heroes who voluntarily go to war for us and we need to treat them like the genuine patriots they are. Any one who believes differently should be allowed to become a soldier for a year and see how their attitude changes.

Conservative Tom



Fort Hood Hero Says Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims
1:07PM Tuesday
February 12, 2013


Share With

facebook Facebook

twitter Twitter

myspace MySpace

yahoo Yahoo!

google Google
(WASHINGTON) -- Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast Tuesday night on World News with Diane Sawyer and Nightline.

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tuesday night’s broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

A spokesperson for the Army said its policy is not to comment on pending litigation, but that it is "not true" any of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no control over the guidelines of the Veterans Administration. Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November, which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said.

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful.

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty," but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh. "So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the president's State of the Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the president or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit," she said.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Be Careful Whose Rights You Trample Upon


If you believe in the Constitution and civil liberties and are afraid of NDAA and the Presidential finding that allows the President to kill American citizens without a trial "if they pose a danger to the country", the poll that the Hill recently conducted should chill you to the bone. Nearly one third of those polled said it was OK to kill its citizens without due process and over four in ten said it was OK to kill those citizens designated as "terrorists."


Let us make one thing clear, we do not favor coddling terrorists or potential terrorists, however, we need to make sure we know who is designating whom. Too often we hear and see the word "terrorist" or "domestic terrorist" attached to people like Tea Party members, returning servicemen, or those who do not agree with the Administration. These are not in our definition. Nor are those who talk a big story but do not do anything as was the 2010 case against the Hutaree group in Michigan. This case ultimately lead to their acquittal on the major charges in 2012. Two of the leaders did plead to minor weapons charges but a far distant result than what the government wanted.

When the government goes after you, it is a fight for your life (and in the most recent past, it could mean that your life is literally on the line). It will cost  millions and like in the above case, it will be a long period of time even if the Feds really don't have anything on you. Do you really want them to be able to kill you with such flimsy information?

NO government agency head should be able to say that "XYZ is a domestic terrorist" and that be the necessary ingredient for a "kill" order to a drone or hit team. If we have degraded our  justice system that far, we are a third world country! The thought that anyone can conduct a hit against an American citizen without having to go through some legal process is unthinkable and very scary.

Any American citizen (whether living in the US or abroad) should have the right to trial, the right to face his accusers and the right to freedom of speech. When these rights go away, ALL of our freedoms go away. Yes, we know that sometimes the people we support are detestable pieces of pond scum, however, once you take away their rights, ours also goes away.

As we saw in the Hutaree situation, the government is not always right and we should be very cautious when giving that authority to bureaucrats regardless of the public approval of such actions. What would have happenned if a "kill" order had been ordered against the Hutaree group. Where would their families have gone to seek justice?

Conservative Tom

More on the Hutaree trial and acquittal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?_r=0

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0327/Hutaree-militia-acquitted-of-plot-to-foment-revolution


Poll: Obama And Bush Share Poor Civil Liberties Record

February 12, 2013 by  
Poll: Obama And Bush Share Poor Civil Liberties Record
UPI
President Barack Obama has disappointed some on civil liberties.
On civil liberties, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. A majority of Americans believe that President Barack Obama’s record balancing national security with civil liberty is about the same or worse than that of President George W. Bush.
According to a poll conducted by The Hill, 37 percent of voters believe that Obama is a worse civil liberties President than Bush was and 15 percent say the two are “about the same.” About one in five people identifying themselves as Democrats said the current President has failed to improve civil rights. Twenty-three percent of people self-identified as “liberals” shared a similar view.
The poll comes on the heels of a Justice Department leak of a white paper which outlines the Administration’s justification of acting as judge, jury and executioner against Americans deemed to be “imminent threats.”
The Hill poll found that 31 percent of respondents believe the government should not be able to kill its own citizens without due process, 41 percent said the government should have the right to kill citizens deemed terrorists.
A recent analysis by The New York Times suggests that the President is spared criticism that was once heaped upon Bush because he is a Democrat:  “For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.”

Gun Insurance As An Gun Control Measure


Several weeks ago we posted our opinion that the Obama Administration would use fees to prevent guns from being purchased or kept.  In the following piece, we see what legislators are doing in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York and California. It may not be fees but it is mandated insurance for guns, which is essentially a fee to own a gun.

Our argument has been that imposing fees is NOT unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to rule that you still have the right to own a gun--just pay the fees.  We purposely set our fee argument with a high limit. Who says that the "smart ones" would not start with a low fee and then over the next four years raise it beyond our initial fee suggestion. All the camel needs is to put its snout in the tent and then before you know it we have effectively had gun confiscation.

Before you discard our suggestion as poor theater, you have to understand the people behind this scheme. They will do EVERYTHING in their power to get guns out of the hands of the law abiding but do NOTHING to remove them from the lawless. 

We know that we are on the right track and the following article definitely confirms our concerns.

Be Scared, Be Very Scared.

Conservative Tom


State Lawmakers Push Gun Insurance Schemes

February 12, 2013 by  
State Lawmakers Push Gun Insurance Schemes
PHOTOS.COM
Public support for sweeping gun control measures isn’t that high and reports indicate that legislative attempts to force draconian new gun laws of the Federal level would be met with swift and fierce rejection. But lawmakers in some States are currently working on a new gun control idea: requiring gun owner insurance.
Legislative measures have been proposed in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York and California that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance on firearms to cover damages or injuries caused by the weapons.
Some proponents of the idea believe it will cut public costs associated with gun crime and accidents and encourage gun owners to be more responsible. Type of firearm, gun theft and accident would all factor into gun insurance premiums.
“I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country,” Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco who introduced a gun insurance bill told Fox News. There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”
Gun rights supporters say the real goal of the bills is to price Americans out of gun ownership by placing hefty fees on the right to bear arms.

Monday, February 11, 2013

ObamaCrapCare Premiums up 100%

According to the following article, insurance premiums, especially on the young, could jump by triple digits! Isn't that a kick in the head of those young people who voted for the Obominator!

ObamaCrapCare aka ObamaCare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to hurt the very people it was meant to help and it will NOT solve the problems it was designed to correct. It is a poorly designed plan that was rushed through the Congress to give Obama a victory.  If it is not thrown out, we will be paying for this crime against the country for years to come.

Conservative Tom

Here is the article: 

http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacares-triple-digit-premium-hikes-dramatize-need-repeal





ObamaCrapCare Premiums Will Increase Dramatically

There are those  who believe in fairy tales and for them, ObamaCrapCare (our name for the Affordable Care Act aka Obama Care) will let them sleep at night, however for the rest of us, it will scare us to death. We have attached an executive summary of the Indiana Insurance Exchange.

When you look at the bottom line in Indiana, premiums will go up significantly for those people who are contributors and will go down significantly for those who are not. Young men's premiums will go up due to having to provide them maternity care. Older people will be subsidized by  younger individuals.

What was amazing to us was the cost of individual cost for the average Indianan. These premiums approach $10,000 per year which is over $800 per month. That far exceeds what could be purchased on the free market today. 

We suspect that many young people will forgo getting insurance due to its cost and accept the small tax hit, especially in the first year. Even in the third year, the tax hit is only $600 which equates to $50 per month, far below the premium they would have to pay. 

ObamaCrapCare will drive doctors out of the business, decrease the amount of time a doctor can spend with his patients as they will have to see more patients and will drive up the costs to everyone except the Congress, which does not come under this failed policy. ObamaCrapCare should be aborted--this is one time we believe in abortion!

Conservative Tom 

Here is the link to the Indiana article:  http://www.in.gov/aca/files/Individual_Market_Premium_Rate_Change_Variability_under_the_ACA_Final.pdf


Ben Carson For President


Whether this weekend finds you blowing two feet of snow off the driveway or counting the hours until "Downton Abbey," make time to watch the video of Dr. Ben Carson speaking to the White House prayer breakfast this week. 

Seated in view to his right are Senator Jeff Sessions and President Obama. One doesn't look happy. You know something's coming when Dr. Carson says, "It's not my intention to offend anyone. But it's hard not to. The PC police are out in force everywhere." 

Dr. Carson tossed over the PC police years ago. Raised by a single mother in inner-city Detroit, he was as he tells it "a horrible student with a horrible temper." Today he's director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and probably the most renowned specialist in his field. 

Late in his talk he dropped two very un-PC ideas. The first is an unusual case for a flat tax: "What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe. We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs." 

Not surprisingly, a practicing physician has un-PC thoughts on health care:

"Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you're born 'til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there's nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're going to learn how to be responsible."

The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he's closer to correct than we've heard in years. 

A version of this article appeared February 9, 2013, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Ben Carson for President.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Benghazi and Drones


Brigitte Gabriel in the accompanying posting talks about Benzhazi and drones. She indicates that we will be surprised about Benghazi. From what we can see, those Americans died without the White House raising a finger.  Had this been a Republican administration. the Dems would be screaming for impeachment. Their silence is deafening!


Conservative Tom



SOURCE: NEW INFO ON BENGHAZI IS GOING TO COME OUT & LEAVE PEOPLE ‘AMAZED & SHOCKED’

Noted author and Islamic terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel during a Saturday appearance on Fox News discussed both President Barack Obama’s controversial use of unmanned drones and the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens:
And although the discussion involving unmanned drones presented some fascinating points, perhaps the most interesting moment in the segment occurred when Gabriel claimed that there is unreleased information regarding the Benghazi attack that will leave people “amazed and shocked.”
“As someone working with the intelligence community, I knew that information and more information is going to come out regarding the Benghazi attack that will really leave people amazed and shocked how we have been … on how we are defending the country,” she said.