Monday, December 31, 2012

Have a very Happy New Year Y'all...

Tonight I am gonna stay home and out of trobs :)...but I wish y'all a great night out...On the menu double cheese burger with fries,Kosher Dill Pickle wedges, a cold beer and a night of surfin' the cable channels...gonna skip the News Channels tonight...burned out of politics and sick of all the political mayhem.
Cheers...just remember to stay outta trobs and drive safe..:)

Hit it Jimmy:)

Obama Has Never Been A Friend To Israel And Never Will Be


Obama Negotiating Strategy Israel SC Obama Has Never Been a Friend to Israel and Never Will Be
The reelection of Barack Obama will prove to be a painful reminder of having been lied to and fooled for many of his supporters. The young voters who sold their futures to vote for whatever they imagined Obama to be will learn hard lessons. The conservatives who stayed home to make some kind of statement of their discontent will be taught hard lessons about the consequences of elections. Those who consider themselves supporters of Israel, who willingly put aside their judgment of obvious facts, are learning how foolish they were.
They  voted for a man they should have recognized as an enemy of Israel’s very existence—not just her right to this or that benefit as an established country, but her very right to exist—and will find their lessons about trusting the untrustworthy Barack Obama very bitter indeed.

Their fantasy worldview of American/Israeli relations under Obama will soon be shattered.
During the past year the signs of disrespect and antagonism toward Israel and her leader Benjamin Netanyahu were abundant. Obama’s reelection has changed nothing.
When given a chance to react to Israel’s battle in Gaza, Obama issued a routine pro forma statement of support, but hamstrung the Jewish State by warning her not to involve ground troops regardless of the circumstances.
Of course the Obama Administration opposed the United Nation’s giving an upgraded status to the Palestinian Authority, but that could easily be construed as support for the “Oslo Accords” fashioned by the Clinton Administration. Nevertheless, Obama did nothing to persuade our allies, especially in Europe to join in opposition to the upgrade.

Where was the media outrage at the defeat of American and Israeli interests regarding the upgrade of Palestine to non-member state status? Why didn’t Barack Obama instruct Ambassador Susan Rice to put  his personal prestige on the table during the debate over that vote?
The State Department’s displeasure with the construction of over 950 new housing units on Israeli soil, which Hillary Clinton deems them to be offensive, is another subtle but genuine sign that nothing has changed and supporters of Israel should not trust Barack Obama to safeguard the well-being of our only ally in the Middle East.
Simply stated : nothing has changed. Obama is no friend of Israel. He never has been and never will be.   Those who love Israel but voted for Obama were lied to and fooled.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath (Creative Commons)

Rent-a-Gun? Govt. To Permit Guns To Be ‘Rented’ Until You Die

OpEd: Jack
Congress and the Senate had better not pass 'any' Gun Ban/Control Bill submitted by Sen. Diane "Commie" Feinstein...if they do they will surely ignite the Spark for the second 'Revolution' ...Be on notice Congressmen and Senators the blood of the nation will fall upon your hands/houses...'We the People' will take no more!

guns SC Rent a Gun? Govt. to Permit Guns to Be Rented Until You Die
The widely anticipated Senate bill soon to be introduced by gun-banner extraordinaire Dianne Feinstein will do far more than eliminate “assault weapons” (AW’s) and “high capacity” magazines.
According to a summary on the senator’s website, concealed carry license holder Feinstein–who proposed an outright ban on all handguns while packing her own for self-defense—will demand that owners of guns affected by her legislation: pay a $200 fee for each banned weapon owned; submit pictures, fingerprints and register AW’s with the ATF; have local law enforcement attest to the owner’s identity and specify the address at which each weapon will be kept.

But the NRA reports that the senator intends to go much further than bans or registration. For assessment of an acquired draft of Feinstein’s bill reveals a provision demanding that guns defined as assault weapons be immediately turned over to the federal government upon the current owner’s death.
Under existing Federal Firearm Legislation, owners of AW’s are permitted to sell their weapons outright, modify them or pass them along to heirs. But not anymore. For should Feinstein’s bill become law, AW’s will be grandfathered into the possession of their current owners and “…[will] remain with [that] …owner until [his] death, at which point they [will] be forfeited to the government.” 

In short, our political ruling class would literally appropriate millions of “assault weapons,” rent the freshly acquired firearms back to their original owners and then seize them after those flagrantly cheated individuals have died.
It is a very clever scheme of mortality-based confiscation!
Registration of the appropriated weapons will be conducted according to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the law which, among other things, regulates ownership of machine guns and silencers. Fortunately the $200 per weapon fee has historically been charged only on the transfer of a weapon rather than on a yearly basis. But of course those banned, “high capacity” magazines must also be taken into account—and taxed.
Feinstein’s bill has yet to be completed, though she has vowed to read it on the Senate floor by January 3rd. Given the massive, nationwide dissent and bitter animosity which would surely result should the contents of the bill be published in an open and honest form, it’s possible that, like ObamaCare, Congress will have to pass the legislation before the American public finds out what’s in it.
One thing is certain–gun owners will undoubtedly acquire many new responsibilities while preserving very few rights.

For example, Feinstein and Co. might demand holders of “assault weapons” purchase some form of renter’s insurance in order to protect themselves from legal responsibility should a gun be stolen and used in a crime. Naturally, the legal responsibility would be levied either by Congress itself or one of its partners in crime—the ATF comes to mind. After all, it would be a swell way to pick up a few bucks while encouraging a “pre-demise” weapon turn-in by owners who wish to avoid legal exposure or the expense of congressionally-mandated insurance coverage.  Imagine the required purchase of an “ATF-approved” policy at $500 per year per weapon. A protection racket to make even Capone blush!
Will the Feinstein bill succeed? Almost certainly not. But consider how much closer it will likely come to passage now than a year ago. And what will happen after the next brutal murder spree deliberately facilitated by the left and its “gun-free zone” legislation?  And the next and the next?
Feinstein’s legislation reveals what the left is determined to achieve, sooner or later and by any means necessary. Those who wish to remain free must be prepared to do anything necessary to defeat them.

Pravda to Americans: Never Give Up Your Guns

by Jim Hoft 


Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. (Zinnfigur)

Pravda warns Americans today, “Never give up your guns.”
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers…
Read the whole thing here.

In Syria, There Is A Literal War On Christmas, Courtesy Of US Government


According to this story at the Australian (see here for text), our allied army that is supposed to end the evil Assad regime and produce a democratic Syria, cut off a Christian’s head and then fed his body to dogs. His crime was the accusation that his brother had been overheard complaining that the Syrian rebel army was behaving like a gang of bandits.
“He has just got married and his wife was about to give birth but this did not save Andrei Arbashe, a young Christian, from a horrific fate at the hands of rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime earlier this month. ‘They beheaded him, cut him into pieces and fed him to the dogs,’ said Agnes-Mariam de la Croix, mother superior of the Monastery of St James the Mutilated between Damascus and Homs.”
It is true that armies cannot always keep out homicidal killers and that the actions of one soldier or a group of soldiers does not always represent the entire armed force. But these kinds of stories are regularly reported. Other than a few faint complaints or second-hand reports in the media that our leaders “are worried,” our rulers’ actions consistently continue to support this insane crusade against Assad using Islamist forces.

Let us just cut to the chase. Here is the situation: Ancient communities of Christians are fighting against NATO and US forces. While they have made admirable attempts to remain neutral, the rebels are not tolerant of such efforts. The Christians are fighting for their lives, to avoid torture, rape, murder, and all other forms of religious persecution. They are, in fact, fighting for the preservation of their faith, as to whether they will be able to pass it on to their children, or see their communities destroyed and the survivors raised Islamic. The NATO and US forces are predominately Al Qaeda related fighters with a few secular officers in place as window dressing. Assuming Syria survives as any kind of country at all, it will be under an extremist Islamic government.
NATO and the US State Department will pretend, of course, that they are simply trying to get rid of an evil dictator for the sake of the people of Syria. There is no doubt that Assad is as evil as any number of dictators that the US has supported or still supports. But there is also no doubt that, once again, like Iraq and like Libya, we are turning a secular dictatorship into an extreme Islamist regime.
Catholic News reported:
“Bishop Nazzaro, in an interview Dec. 28 with Fides, the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, said, ‘The leaders of nations must do everything to stop the conflict which is destroying the whole country.’ After six months of fighting in Aleppo and with no clear victor in sight, whether the government or the rebels prevail, he said, ‘they will find themselves facing a mountain of human and material rubble.’” 

Aleppo is a region with many Christians. There is no sign that anyone wants to stop the conflict. Supporting known terrorists and Jihadis who behead Christians and feed them to dogs does not allow one to present credible offers for negotiation. Assad knows that NATO and US forces, after betraying their agreements with him, allowed Gaddafi to be raped to death with a bayonet. Assad has every reason to assume that he can’t trust the people who are opposing him.
In the meantime, Christians are being directly attacked by US proxy armies. American Christians need to be speaking up for them and against our government.

New Robot Proves Evolution is Impossible

The theory of evolution is posited as an established scientific fact even though there is no empirical evidence of how inanimate matter came into existence and evolved into highly complex living organisms. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating where organized information came from to give structure and development to evolved matter. Finally, there is no empirical evidence showing the millions, possibly billions, of gradual evolutionary steps that were necessary to go from an inanimate glob of atoms to fully evolved humans.
There are theories for such things, but no empirical data to prove the theories.
Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind.[1] Nature isn’t a person. When “Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,” as the opening line to the theme song for “The Big Bang Theory” TV show states, where was life, thought, mind, logic, rationality, morality? What was directing the organization of atoms into “autotrophs” and “Neanderthals” and everything else?

The first question is not “is the human race just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet?,” as Stephen Hawking asked. The primary question is, Where and how did the “chemical scum” come into existence in the first place and organize itself into complex life forms? Erwin Schrödinger noted the problem in his book What is Life?, published in 1944:
“How can the events in space and time which take place with the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry? The preliminary answer . . . can be summarized as follows: The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.”
Dr. Schrödinger didn’t know then, and physicists and chemists don’t know now.

Andy Pross writes that the passage of more than 65 years and “enormous advances in molecular biology, illuminated by a long list of Nobel prizes, we continue to struggle with Schrödinger’s simple and direct question.”

Chemists, biologists, and physicists know that “living things are made up of the same ‘dead molecules as non-living ones, but somehow the manner in which those molecules interact in a holistic ensemble results in something special—us, and every other living thing on this planet.” 
This is what is known. What’s not known, and Pross and other evolutionists admit, is how it call came to be.

Even so, contrary to all “common sense,” the “basic laws of physics,” and the fact that “highly organized entities don’t spontaneously come about,” Pross and other evolutionists have no other choice but to deny common sense and the basic laws of physics in order to maintain that the cosmos and life in it arose spontaneously.
They need to take a lesson from the development of Roboy said to be “one of the most advanced humanoid robots.” Did it arise spontaneously? From conception and design to manufacture and assembly, building Roboy has taken “15 project partners and over 40 engineers and scientists.” Why don’t we see examples of early models of Roboy buried in the fossil record? Why no Transformers?
Roboy is certainly a marvel of engineering, but it cannot compare to a human, and if it hadn’t been for humans, there wouldn’t be a Roboy.

Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, would claim that the evolution of the robot is similar to biological evolution. Instead of a robot, he appeals to the evolution of the Corvette:
“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”[2]

Berra’s definition of automotive evolution is in no way similar to non-directed biological evolution whereby life arose from nonlife and changes within a species resulted in gradual changes so that a new species is said to have evolved. The first Corvette was designed by someone as was each new model thereafter. The same is true for everything — from the thumb tack to the space shuttle.

Lawmaker: Tweak Constitution to affirm gun rights

by Taylor Rose 

Dianne Feinstein
WASHINGTON – A state lawmaker in Montana is proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to deal with the suggestion from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would require Americans to register their guns, and critics say, would even lead to their confiscation.
Feinstein’s idea has been labeled “treason” on a White House petition site, and has earned the ire of Rep. Jerry O’Neil, R-Columbia Falls, who told WND he’d like to see some changes made to protect state’s rights and the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
He said he’s starting to push for the state of Montana to press for the adoption of two new constitutional amendments to protect firearm ownership and national sovereignty. Read More:

California Crime Drops As Gun Sales Surge


Los Angeles officials recently lauded their gun buyback program on Wednesday that bribed gun owners with a Ralph’s gift card worth either $100 or $200, depending on the type of gun they turned in. On Wednesday, the LAPD collected 2,037 guns including handguns, rifles, “assault” weapons and one rocket launcher. In total, these buybacks have pulled in about 10,000 California guns since the program began in 2009.
While officials are celebrating these programs and saying that these events will make California streets safer, gun sales there have shot up significantly in the past 10 years. In 2002, 350,000 guns were sold in California, but last year, over 600,000 were sold. So a couple thousand guns were turned in last week, but that’s nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands bought last year alone. What’s also telling is the overall drop in crime that corresponded to the increase in gun sales:

“Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data…. During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health. Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show. Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime. The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.” Expect the gun control advocates to attribute any drop in violent crime in California to these silly gun buyback programs. But what they don’t tell us is how many people are turning in their guns because they’re old and defunct. Maybe some of their guns aren’t even worth $25, so the prospect of getting $100 in groceries sounds like a great deal.
What they also don’t tell us is how many criminals are turning in guns that they used to commit crimes. Since there are “no questions asked,” the police are taking the evidence and destroying it for the criminal.And as for the rest of the gun owners who turned in their weapons, they’re only making themselves more
vulnerable to the criminals who wouldn’t dare turn in their guns.These programs will have little to no effect on violent crime rates. However, what is already having an effect is the proliferation of guns to law-abiding citizens in California who understand that when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Is Obama a Visitor From a ‘Morally Superior Civilization’?


David Brooks from The New York Times envisions President Obama as someone who “sometimes . . . governs like a visitor from a morally superior civilization.” Let’s see, support for homosexual marriage, killing pre-born children (called being “pro-choice”), forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to people who did nothing to earn it, and counterfeiting money in the name of stimulating the economy, is said to be “morally superior” behavior. By what standard? By whose authority?
Chicago has had 500 murders in 2012, and what does President Obama call for in the state of Illinois? The legalization of homosexual marriage. But there’s more:
“The urgency with which the state’s Democrat-dominated legislature has taken up the issue of gay marriage over the past two years contrasts sharply with its refusal to tackle the pressing problem of state debt. Illinois has the lowest debt rating of any state, according to some ratings agencies, and has the nation’s worst public pension crisis, with unfunded liabilities approaching $100 billion. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) raised income taxes 66% two years ago, which barely made a dent in the state’s deficits but was quickly followed by the nation’s worst job losses.”

“Obama has not urged the state to deal with its deficits, debts, and pensions, nor did he do so as a state senator.”
Please tell me, Mr. Brooks, where is this “morally superior civilization” so we can send President Obama back to it?
No one is “morally superior.” That’s why the President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution; it’s an admission of moral inferiority. “In questions of power,” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
The fact that he and so many members of Congress don’t keep the oath they swore to uphold is prima facie evidence that not one of them is morally superior. 

James Madison said it best in Federalist No. 51:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
What Mr. Brooks needs is a standard for morality. He doesn’t have one, and neither does the President. Most politicians don’t have one.
Mr. Brooks’ comment about the President being a “visitor from a morally superior civilization” reminds me of what philosopher Richard Rorty (1931–2007) described in a lecture:

“Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of beef?[1]
Who gets to determine what constitutes a “morally superior civilization”? It’s quite easy when you start with humanistic assumptions and believe that the State is the guiding light for all that’s good and right. Those with unabridged power can claim that even the most evil practice is morally superior “from a particular point of view.” Do we think the Communists and Nazis sold their programs to the people as something less than morally superior?
“Morally superior” politics today is based on who a politician can get to support him. This is accomplished by doing morally inferior things.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Anti-gunners: Please shut up!

by Barbara Simpson

The anti-gunners are out in force, and they just won’t shut up!
They’re fed by two horrific killings this month: the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and the ambush of volunteer firefighters in Webster, N.Y., in which two were killed and two wounded as well as one policeman.
In the school shooting, the perpetrator, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, first shot and killed his mother and ended it all with suicide.
The perpetrator of the ambush on firefighters, 62-year-old William Spengler, is suspected of killing his sister – human remains were found in the house he destroyed by arson – and he ended it all with suicide.
The bodies of the Connecticut school victims were barely cold when the experts grabbed the microphones and headlines calling for gun control, stronger gun laws and the elimination of those big, black, ugly looking weapons.
Media focused especially on the school shooting because of the young victims, and guns were blamed rather than the shooter. Read More:

Those nasty 'assault weapons'

by Joseph Farah 

Can anyone in Washington define “assault weapon”?
Can Barack Obama?
Can Dianne Feinstein?
It is a meaningless term designed by people like Feinstein, who would prefer to ban all or most firearms, specifically to confuse the public.
Yesterday, Obama said on “Meet the Press” that he would work hard on banning “assault weapons” and what he calls “high-capacity magazines.”
Of course, definitions were in short supply.
So what is an “assault weapon”?
Quite simply, it’s whatever the government says it is.
Does that shock you?
In the past, so-called “assault weapons” have been banned for manufacture and sale to citizens of the U.S. merely on the basis of what they look like, not because they behave any differently from ordinary semi-automatic weapons that fire one round at a time. Read More:

Resolve to conquer or die

author-image by Chuck Norris 

When President Obama was re-elected, the winds waned behind many patriots’ ships’ sails. My wife, Gena, and I felt that sock in the gut for our country and posterity, too. But instead of cowering in defeat, I believe we need to discard conventional (unsuccessful) strategies and advance in new directions.
The future of our country is not going to hinge upon the Republican Party’s reinvention (as so many think), but upon each of us patriots asking what isn’t working about our approach and modifying our attacks for greater impact in the culture and political wars. You don’t fight and win unconventional wars with conventional weapons – that’s why we lost in November.
The majority voted to continue to be pelted from within the U.S. by the Obama administration and from without by the United Nations’ rogue usurpation of American’s rights. In the past six months alone, the Obama administration has teamed up with the U.N. to enforce Internet intrusions, clamp down on gun rights, further regulate airline industries, utilize billions of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to expand U.N. global warming control and expand global abortion. And who can forget the proliferation of Agenda 21 and growth of Interpol to enforce new international law? Read More:

The Nazi roots of U.S. gun-control laws

by Ellis Washington 

Here’s the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide.
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: Unarmed, defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: Evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th century alone.
~ Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership website
The pretext: Massacre of the innocents – Newtown, Conn.
I am a professor at a wonderful online school called National Paralegal College (NPC). Shannon Southard, a student there recently raised some very prescient questions on the issue of gun control:
Seems that almost every shooting that has made national headlines recently has involved a shooter suffering from one form or mental issues or another. We had two tragic shootings this week – one in a crowded mall another in an elementary school. Not to mention the awful shooting earlier this year at the movie theater. … Who should be blamed for these individuals being able to commit such heinous acts – lawmakers for allowing access to weapons, mental health professionals for possibly not treating appropriately, society for turning their backs on them?
This prompted fellow NPC student, Kathryn Dunigan to remark, “Almost all the mass shooters over the past 20 years, including the ones at Columbine and the Aurora Theater were on mind altering psychiatric drugs. Is gun control really the national conversation we need, or is [it] medication control?” Read More:

The Postlude
America, you have a constitutional natural right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are all unalienable rights, which meant that they are God-given, self-evident truths, natural rights that originated from God, the Bible and Natural Law and therefore can never be lawfully taken away by man or the State.
America, if you don’t learn your history, you will be damned to repeat it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted to hospital with blood clot following concussion

Bingo... I'll get out of  testifying on Benghazi, cause I have a blood clot

Amazing...after a fun filled vacation in the Dominican Republic Hillary fakes another illness...isn't she about out of excuses by now?...Guess not her whole life has been one excuse after the other...Hmmm being that she claims she became ill while working this must be on Workers Comp...I want a second opinion on her so called blood clot!

NRA Mocks Feinstein Gun Ban Bill: Next She’ll Add “Nuclear Bomb” & “Particle Beam Weapon”


The National Rifle Institute for Legislative Action has issued a statement on the “Assault Weapons Ban” bill the Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) plans to introduce to the Senate on the first day it convenes on January 3, 2013. While the statement goes over several of the things I’ve covered here and here, it also points out some other things contained in the bill and even mocks her ridiculous hyperbole of adding “rocket launchers” to the bill. This caused the NRA to respond, “Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.”
The NRA-ILA’s statement dealt with several of the changes in the Feinstein bill from the previous one she put forth in 1994, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. Here’s what they said,

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

  • Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
  • Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

  • But this wasn’t all. The NRA-ILA points out that Feinstein has expanded the definition of “assault weapon to include the following:
    • Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    • Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
    The response also points out the following:

  • Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
  • Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

  • Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
  • Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

  • You are encouraged to contact your representatives and make your voice heard loud and clear in opposition to this bill. You can contact your representatives at 202-224-3121 or via the NRA’s “Write Your Representative” tool on its website.

    Nevada Introduces Anti-NDAA Bill

    OpEd: Jack
    Hey Harry are only popular in Las Vegas with the Unions and Illegal Aliens...your time is numbered in Nevada!


    With the recent passage by Congress of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, soon to be signed into law by Barack Obama, and existence of the 2012 NDAA law, many states have sought nullification of NDAA. Nevada is now set to put forth it’s own anti-NDAA bill, BDR 728. On December 19, the Nevada chapters of the People Against the National Defense Authorization Act (PANDA) announced the introduction of the bill. The bill is sponsored by Nevada State Senator Don Gustavson and will be presented to lawmakers in February when the legislature reconvenes.

    Christopher Corbett, Nevada state coordinator for PANDA, said in a statement that announced the introduction of the bill, which is titled “The Nevada Liberty Preservation Act”:
    I appreciate the community support backing up our efforts and the courage of those members of our governing bodies who are willing to actively protect the constitutional rights of their constituents. We need to restore the Constitutionally protected right to due process for every American.

    The 2012 version of NDAA was signed into law quietly on New Year’s Eve last year and it is expected that the recently passed NDAA bill will be signed in a similar manner. Major media outlets have yet to deal with this issue so it’s up to the rest of us to share the information of what the federal government is doing through legislation. They are openly violating the Constitution of the United States and indicating that America has become a battlefield and that each one of us is a potential terrorist, not because they can prove such in a court of law, but because they simply say so. The NDAA then provides for those individuals, including American citizens to be denied due process, which is a Constitutionally protected right under the Sixth Amendment.

    The 2012 NDAA, which has not been repealed, authorizes individuals to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial simply on the accusation that they may be tied to terrorists or be one themselves. PANDA’s Nevada chapter claims the 2012 NDAA’s Sections 1021 & 1022 “violates at least 23 Articles of and Amendments to both the US and Nevada Constitutions.”
    Some Congressmen attempted to thwart this year’s NDAA bill. Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) put for an amendment to remove the indefinite de, which was shamefully rejected by a vote of 238-182.
    Amash passionately stated during the House debate on the amendment, “The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial.”

    Cully Stimson, writing for the Heritage Foundation, called the Smith-Amash Amendment “Dangerous policy” saying, “The Smith–Amash amendment would force the government to send any al-Qaeda member captured in the United States directly to federal court. If this amendment becomes law, it would limit a President’s flexibility and take off the table lawful military detention and lawful interrogation for intelligence purposes. For these and other reasons, the proposal is unwise.”
    So while there continue to be people like Stimson who don’t want to follow the rule of law, our Constitution, then we are all at risk, for Section 1021 goes far beyond “being a member of al-Qaeda.” It states that Congress affirms the authority of the President to use all appropriate military force according to the “laws of war.” The problem here is that there has not been a Constitutionally declared war in America. Therefore, the entire argument is bogus. Dealing with those on the battlefield is one thing. Dealing with those who commit crimes in America is something else, no matter who they are affiliated with and the last time I checked, the Sixth Amendment applies to all those on U.S. soil.

    In fact, this issue of indefinite detention was struck down earlier in the year by a U.S district court judge, but then resurrected back to life within 24 hours by New York federal judge Raymond Lohier, and this was after the Obama administration petitioned for it, even after Obama first claimed he would never sign the bill into law because of the provision of “indefinite detention.”
    The Nevada chapters of PANDA have not only supported this at the state level but have also pushed for similiar nullification at the local level for the Washoe County Commission and the Reno City Council.

    The Theater Shooting The Main Stream Media Didn’t Focus On & Why


    theater shooting
    There has been lots of talk over the past few months about gun control by the main stream media and liberals in general. This was anticipated following the shooting in an Aurora, Colorado theater at the opening of The Dark Knight Rises. It escalated over the next couple of months until the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Because so many young children were killed the emotional response was increased, but I’ll bet most people never heard of a shooting that took place at a theater just two days after that and for good reason; it didn’t go with the liberal’s agenda.

    On Sunday, December 16, 2012 a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio, Texas for the sole purpose of killing his ex-girlfriend because she had broke up with him. The gunman, 19 year old Jesus Manuel Garcia, apparently did not complete his task. He opened fire in the theater which caused mass panic. People were running for cover and rushing towards exits, according to police and witnesses.
    At least two people were wounded in the shooting.

    So why was there not widespread news footage covering this event? The shooter was stopped. The Santikos Mayan Palace 14 Movie Theater also houses a small restaurant. When the shooting began in the restaurant and as people went for cover, Garcia began to fire outside at an unmarked police car. He then moved to the theater where off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who was working the theater chased Garcia to the back of the theater and cornered him in the men’s room, shooting him several times and taking his gun.

    Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, said, “She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater.”
    Armando Oguin, an off-duty San Antonio Independent School District police officer restrained Garcia with handcuffs. He was then taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center where he was in stable condition in intensive care the following Monday.
    My guess is because the shooting was stopped by an off duty officer and the fact that the crime was not committed with an AR-15 has something to do with why this did not get mass coverage. The fact that there was no one killed probably adds to that. So what was used? A Glock 23, according to this report.
    The Glock 23 is a .40 caliber handgun that holds 13 rounds in its magazine and 1 in the chamber. This is one of hundreds of handguns that would come under Senator Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban” bill. Of course, no AR-15 rifle for the media and the left to call for more bans on alleged “assault weapons” and there was not mental health issues for anyone to jump on either.

    This really should speak volumes for the media’s silence. Yes, the person that stopped the shooter was a police officer, but consider they were off duty and allowed to carry their weapon at the theater.
    The point is that the good guy, or in this case, the good gal, had a gun to stop the bad guy. Otherwise everyone else were potential victims. Sgt. Castellano is to be congratulated for her bravery and ending what could have potentially been a very deadly situation.
    After contacting the movie theater I learned that they openly display signs, just like at the Aurora theater, that concealed weapons are not allowed. Therefore, it seems that once again a theater takes it upon itself to create victims, rather than empower individuals to protect themselves. Obviously the criminal, Mr. Garcia, paid no attention to the law or the signs.
    Garcia was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bail was set at $1 million.

    Regulating the Militia

     By Kevin D. Williamson, NRO
    My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent. Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.

    Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
    There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution: 
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.“Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers” — not Bambi, not burglars. While your granddad’s .30-06 is a good deal more powerful than the .223 rifles that give blue-state types the howling fantods, that is not what we have a constitutional provision to protect. Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled. 
    The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. If you doubt that, consider the history of arms control in England, where members of the Catholic minority (and non-Protestants generally) were prohibited from bearing arms as part of the campaign of general political oppression against them. The Act of Disenfranchisement was still in effect when our Constitution was being written, a fact that surely was on the mind of such Founding Fathers as Daniel Carroll, to say nothing of his brother, Archbishop John Carroll.

    The Second Amendment speaks to the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. Brett may think that such a notion is an antiquated relic of the 18th century, but then he should be arguing for wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment rather than presenting — what’s the word? — disingenuous arguments about what it means and the purpose behind it.

    If we want to reduce the level of criminal violence in our society, we should start by demanding that the police and criminal-justice bureaucracies do their job. Massacres such as Sandy Hook catch our attention because they are so unusual. But a great deal of the commonplace violence in our society is preventable. Brett here might look to his hometown: There were 1,662 murders in New York City from 2003 to 2005, and a New York Times analysis of the data found that in 90 percent of the cases, the killer had a prior criminal record. (About half the victims did, too.) Events such as Sandy Hook may come out of nowhere, but the great majority of murders do not. The police function in essence as a janitorial service, cleaning up the mess created in part by our dysfunctional criminal-justice system. 
    We probably would get more out of our criminal-justice system if it were not so heavily populated by criminals. As I note in my upcoming book, The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome, it can be hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys:
    For more than twenty years, NYPD detectives worked as enforcers and assassins for the Gambino crime family; in 2006 two detectives were convicted not only of murder and conspiracy to commit murder but also on charges related to such traditional mob activity as labor racketeering, running illegal gambling rings, extortion, narcotics trafficking, obstruction of justice, and the like. This was hardly an isolated incident; only a few years prior to the NYPD convictions more than 70 LAPD officers associated with the city’s anti-gang unit were found to have been deeply involved in gang-affiliated criminal enterprises connected to the Bloods street gang. Their crimes ranged from the familiar police transgressions of falsifying evidence, obstructing justice, and selling drugs seized in arrests to such traditional outlaw fare as bank robbery — they were cops and robbers. More than 100 criminal convictions were overturned because of evidence planted or falsified by officers of the LAPD. One scholarly account of the scandal concluded that such activity is not atypical but rather systemic — and largely immune to attempts at reform: “The current institution of law enforcement in 
    America does appear to reproduce itself according [to] counter-legal norms . . . attempts to counteract this reproduction via the training one receives in police academies, the imposition of citizen review boards, departments of Internal Affairs, etc. do not appear to mitigate against this structural continuity between law enforcement and crime.”  

    The Department of Homeland Security has existed for only a few years but it already has been partly transformed into an organized-crime syndicate. According to a federal report, in 2011 alone more than 300 DHS employees and contractors were charged with crimes ranging from smuggling drugs and child pornography to selling sensitive intelligence to drug cartels. That’s not a few bad apples — that’s an arrest every weekday and many weekends. Given the usual low ratio of arrests to crimes committed, it is probable that DHS employees are responsible for not hundreds but thousands of crimes. And these are not minor infractions: Agents in the department’s immigration division were caught selling forged immigrant documents, and DHS vehicles have been used to transport hundreds (and possibly thousands) of pounds of illegal drugs. A “standover” crew — that is, a criminal enterprise that specializes in robbing other criminals — was found being run by a DHS agent in Arizona, who was apprehended while hijacking a truckload of cocaine.Power corrupts. Madison knew that, and the other Founders did, too, which is why we have a Second Amendment.

    On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won’t Comply

    by:  John Ransom 

    Americans know instinctively that when liberals start talking about deficit reduction that’s it’s just a case of the fantods, as Huckleberry Finn would say. And say what you will about old Huck, but he knew a couple of frauds when he saw them.
    No matter what liberal “Wonks” like Ezra Klein say about the historically dumb healthcare “reform” known as Obamcare, Americans are uneasy about it.
    And they should be.
    More and more law-abiding Americans say that they have constitutional objections to the healthcare and liberty land grab by the Obama administration.

    Coming next? It could be guns! 
    Despite Sotomayor Ruling, Hobby Lobby Won’t Comply With Abortifacient Mandate, says the National Catholic Register.
    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby as well as a number of other organizations and groups that have filed lawsuits against the mandate, said in a statement posted on its website following Sotomayor’s decision that the company would not provide abortifacient drugs in its health-insurance plan. 

    And the trend could grow, from healthcare to guns. And then, Houston, we have a problem.
    The best thing- as Democrat strategist James Carville admitted last year- that could have happened for the Democrats is for the Supreme Court to have tossed out the landmark legislation that bears Obama's name.
    But that didn't happen, so now the Democrats are stuck trying to make another bad law work.  
    Obamacare supporters like Ezra Klein, instead of trying to fix the problem continue to play dirty pool when it comes to healthcare reform.  They now count it as a deficit fighter, when in fact, it’s no such thing.
    Unless of course you count any bill with a tax increase in it as a deficit fighter. A defense contract could be a deficit fighter too, if a defense contract was designed just like Obamacare.
    Here let me show you the sleight of hand that liberals did to claim Obamacare fights the deficit.  

    Say, for example, that when we decommission the old Nimitz-class carriers we then replace them with the newer Gerald Ford class of carriers at $15 billion a clip. Let’s say, in this example, that we then raise taxes 3.8 percent on people who go over a certain income limit, to an extent that we not only pay for each carrier but we also create a surplus of $100 billion that we can apply to the deficit- just as they did in Obamcare. Actually in the case of the aircraft carriers, the exact same tax increase that the used for Obamacare would pay for the carriers and leave a surplus of $180 billion over the same period, almost twice what Obamacare claims. 
    Then we could pass both the replacement aircraft carrier budget authorization and the tax increase in one bundle- just as they did with Obamacare- and call it the The American Affordable Defense Act (AADA).   
    Then any time someone threatens to scrap the Ford class carriers we could cry out “But getting rid of the AADA would add to the deficit!”
    While the typical American doesn’t necessarily know the ins and outs of Obamacare, the same confidence game has been played on them so may times that they are wise to it.  
    Counting on public stupidity to see a massive new spending program, like Obamacare, as some sort of deficit fighter, because THEY SAY IT IS, just shows you how weak the original case for Obamacare was in the first place.
    And only in Washington can you start off entitlement reform that’s supposed to reduce spending, by ushering in a massive new government program that will greatly grow government spending. And then pat yourself on the back for it.  

    Wasn’t it the same type of entitlement Ponzi scheme that gave us the problem in the first place?
    Wonks and politicians may not see it, but those guys are in the process of self term-limiting out of business anyway- either by votes or by pageviews. 2010 was just a preview, not a conclusion even accepting the standstill in the 2012 election.
    Readers know that I hate to pick on the Washington Post this way, but I don’t know anyone who would willingly call themselves a wonk in the first place. The Post’s Wonk brand is stuck in the Way-Back Machine of the 1990s.
    The Wonk Disneyland, known as DC, is exactly what gets us these kinds of political and mathematical ruses that pass for solutions these day. The only choice we will have soon is to stop complying with federal mandates like Obamacare.  
    Because Americans continue to favor repeal of Obamacare.
    The Supreme Court decision calling Obamacare a tax will likely reinforce the opinion that it’s a flawed piece of legislation that greatly expands government bureaucracy at a time when Americans think that government is doing too much not too little.
    You can pass Obamacare as a deficit measure and call it Constitutional -and then wonk about it all you want. But Americans know the truth.
    Obamacare, like the tax on tea that saw a load of it dumped into Boston Harbor in 1773, is just plain dumb.  And both also go against natural law.
    I won't comply.


    Death of Tea Party appears exaggerated, members in House appear to hold key fiscal vote

    The Tea Party has had an up-and-down political ride since the movement helped Republicans take control of the House in 2010, but those elected in the midterm elections still appear to wield considerable power in the fiscal negotiations.
    The roughly 50 members elected to the House two years ago have been a challenge for the more moderate House Speaker John Boehner since they took office. Perhaps most memorably, many of them refused last year to support a debt-ceiling bill because they said it didn’t reduce federal spending enough.
    Just last week they squashed Boehner’s fiscal plan by refusing to compromise and vote on a tax increase for any American, despite the House speaker — in his so-called “Plan B” — having suggested extending tax cuts only for those making more than $1 million annually.

    Sam Colt and the Law of Self-Preservation

    It is said that the 2nd Amendment follows hard upon the 1st so as to serve as its bodyguard — providing the added incentive of coercive force by a wary citizenry to guarantee that those initial cherished liberties, expounded by our Founders, did not go the way of the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, interpreted as the right to bear arms by a free people, has not escaped that yawning chasm that has opened up between the political Right and Left, and the rationale behind this stratification falls along the same familiar tensions of individual vs. collective. The nature of men, having proved insufficient in wisdom for the eradication of evil, must then paradoxically utilize the equalization of deadly force to not only suppress the jaundiced glint in our neighbor’s eye but the tyranny that arises when men esteem the chimera of ordered equality over liberty.

    Of all laws that are deemed to have their origin in nature, the Law of Self-Preservation is indeed the most fundamental. Each person, ceteris paribus, has been deemed to have an a priori right to guard the sanctity and value of their life through any means necessary, assuming their attitude is one of general peace with men and not of the character of brigands. The friction arises with the inherent inequality of humanity, evidenced in their disparate size, strength, and stature. Now, while defensively brandishing a knife or cudgel poses a strong inducement in mounting one’s stout defense of life or property, the use of a firearm has irrevocably changed the dynamic relationship between both predator and victim. Since criminals, from the dullest to the most sophisticated, are deeply concerned with maintaining both their own freedom and their “skin,” more than a passing thoughtful consideration is generally weighed within a criminal’s nefarious equation when deciding whom he shall next fall upon.

    Cont Reading:

    PJTV: Don't Let Liberals Elect the First Female President!

    Alfonzo Rachel warned you that Democrats electing the first black president would be bad for the country. They've been given power to use the race card against Americans. Now, Zo is worried about Democrats electing the first female president. Find out why on this ZoNation.

    "Obama's War on Kids"

    Obama's outrageous tax schemes are hurting our littlest Americans. '

    England Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns

    England grabbed its citizens guns in 1997. Crime skyrocketed as the law-abiding were disarmed. The English citizens have a message for Americans — Don’t give up your guns!

    How Chicago and Obama Globalized Voter Fraud

    Chicago-Skyline 1
    Chicago has a long tradition of padding its vote totals by placing homeless and deceased persons on its voter registration list. Jim Laski, who once served as the City Clerk of Chicago, second in power only to the mayor, noted in his book My Fall From Grace that fraudulent voters were registered to addresses that included cemeteries, municipal buildings, and taverns. The taverns, at least, are understandable: politically connected city workers spent so much time on bar stools the Board of Elections thought they lived there.
    Other voters who had died or moved away were also on the voter registration list. Once again, the tendency for the dead to vote in Chicago can be easily explained: the dead cannot be expected to walk to City Hall and remove themselves from the registered voter list. Everyone in Chicago knows they can only walk as far as the local polling place. This tradition was verified in 1983 when the registered voter list was examined and it was found that 3,000 had either died or moved away.
    Since 1985 Chicago has pioneered new ways to promote illegal immigration. After 1990 the illegal immigrant population in Chicago and the nation skyrocketed. As illegal immigrants flocked to Chicago, a method was needed to get them on the registered voter list. Although 80,000 illegal aliens voted in 1982, the old-fashioned way, through vote fraud; by 2005 both Cook County and the state of Illinois had moved to allow photo I.D. to be given to illegal immigrants by passing matricula consular laws.
    By allowing the matricula consular to function as an official photo I.D., Illinois and Chicago can say they are conforming to any Voter ID requirement. But the Cook County law (most Illinois illegal immigrants live in Cook County) also allows the consulates of Mexico and “any other Latin American country” to issue the consular I.D.s at their discretion. In effect, Illinois has enabled foreign countries to decide who votes in U.S. elections.

    Plans to Oust House Speaker Boehner Are Taking Shape

    Following increasing dissatisfaction with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), staffs of unnamed House members have developed a detailed plan to oust him as the first order of business when the new Congress convenes on Thursday, January 3. Matthew Boyle, writing for, obtained a copy of the plan with its strategy and tactics laid out in detail. Provided by staffers who demanded anonymity in case the plan backfires, it will be the first issue the House will have to deal with when the Congress returns to Washington.
    Initial rumblings of discontent with Boehner’s leadership appeared immediately after his “purge” of four conservatives from the House Budget and Financial Services committees: Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and David Schweikert (R-Ariz.). A GOP leadership aide told NBC News that they were “clearly not team players,” and had to go. Specifically each of them strongly opposed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which set the stage for the current fiscal cliff confrontations.
    Said Ned Ryun, president and CEO of American Majority Action (AMA),
    Speaker Boehner has been an abysmal failure as speaker, and his latest purge is the nail in the coffin for conservatives. Boehner has never won a negotiation battle with the White House or Senate — and he’s been nothing short of an embarrassing spokesman for the conservative movement. It’s time for him to go.

    When he learned of the purge, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) could see what was coming: “They’re going to punish freshman legislators? If you’re looking for dissension, then you’re going to get it. These congressmen will never cave. They’re going to get the support of the people … they will become heroes.” Rep. Amash concurred: “It just emboldens us. I talked to a number of conservatives…who are appalled at what happened. The leadership team has a growing rebellion on their hands.”
    Read More:

    It's back: Texas in 'Super Highway' deal with Spain

    by Jerome R. Corsi 

    NEW YORK – Believe it or not, the Trans-Texas Corridor is back.
    Very quietly, Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Department of Transportation, or TxDOT, signed in October a comprehensive development agreement to construct a toll-road redevelopment of Interstate 35 north of downtown Fort Worth.
    TxDOT signed the 50-year deal with NTE Mobility Partners Segments 3 LLC, a U.S.-based wholly-owned subsidiary of Cintra, the Spanish-owned construction company. TxDOT picked Cintra in 2005 to build what some critics called the “NAFTA Super Highway.”
    Chris Lippincot, the former TxDOT information officer who is currently acting as the new public relations man for Cintra in the United States, also announced TxDOT signed a contract in September with Cintra to build a privatized State Highway 130 toll road in San Antonio. Read More :