Thursday, January 31, 2013

Initial Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise To 368,000

 
 
 
 
 
 

All signs point to impending state of martial law...White House silent on matter

With military helicopters flying above her southeast Houston neighborhood, Frances Jerrals didn't know what to think.

"When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst," Jerrals said.

And so, she passed along her concern.

"She told me 'don't come home it sounds like we're in a war zone. Guns, shooting, helicopters flying around the house,'" Isaac Robertson Jr. said.

The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the old Carnegie Vanguard High School near Scott and Airport. There were armed men in fatigues, plenty of weapons and what many thought were real live rounds.
Last week, not only were military helicopters seen flying over Miami's downtown area, but the distinct sound of machine-gun fire could be heard and black-clad commandos were seen repelling onto rooftops.

The Miami Herald reported:

Miami-Dade police sent out a warning [last] Monday that multiple police agencies would be providing support for a joint military training exercise somewhere over Miami and elsewhere in the county. The exercise will include the use of military helicopters.

[...]

The police statement said the training locations and times “were carefully selected to minimize negatively impacting the citizens of the City of Miami/Miami-Dade County and their daily routines.”

But it also acknowledged that there would be some impact on residents.

“This is routine training conducted by military personnel designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirement,” the police statement said.

Also, last week, similar military exercises began taking place in Los Angeles.

Local CBS affiliate KCAL reported:

The Los Angeles Police Department teamed with military special operation forces Wednesday evening to conduct multi-agency tactical exercises in the skies above downtown LA.

Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.

Someone could be seen sitting inside an open chopper with his legs hanging off the side.

Sky9 spotted the Black Hawk in the dark, making what appeared to be a drop off at a park before quickly ascending back into the air.

Throughout the exercise, the five rotorcrafts were staged at Dodgers Stadium.

The LAPD said the purpose of the training was in part to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments.

In fact, since April 2012, the U.S. military has conducted these urban exercises in St. Louis, MO; Minneapolis, MN.; Long Branch, NJ; Laredo, TX; Boston, MA; and Chicago, IL, as well.

Additionally, earlier this month, the Ohio National Guard along with FEMA conducted a mock disaster drill, practicing their response to the potential release of a chemical, biological or radiological weapon.

However, in this case, Americans who believe they have "the right to keep and bear arms" were the target...

WSAZ reported:

"The make-believe scenario is timely. Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government's interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community."

Read about the chilling exercise in Portsmouth, OH...

Of course, a little over a week ago, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made the shocking claim that President Obama will only keep military leaders who "will fire on U.S. citizens."

Read this columnist's report on the shocking claim...

It should be noted that the Obama administration has yet to deny the allegation.

On January 20, the Washington Free Beacon reported the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

Since 2010, Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal (USA), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. David Petraeus (USA) and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright (USMC) have all been forced into retirement.

In light of the Obama administration's push for gun-grabbing legislation (being sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)), a flurry of "multi-agency training drills" and the dismissal of several well-respected military leaders...one need not be a conspiracy theorist to be genuinely concerned about the imminent threat to our freedoms.
"I felt like I was in a warzone." Jerrals said. "It was nonstop. I was terrified."

Turns out, it was a multi-agency training drill that Jerrals wished would have come with warning.

"They could have done a better job in notifying the neighborhood," Jerrals said.

The Army did not give any details of what the training is for.


Stetson hats are in again at Sheriff's Office Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Stetson hats are in again at Sheriff's Office

The iconic Stetson hat, long a part of Texas law enforcement lore, is returning to the Bexar County Sheriff's Office after a two-decade ban.
Citing requests from deputies after she took office Jan. 1, Sheriff Susan Pamerleau on Tuesday said she's allowing the classic western hats as optional headgear for deputies in uniform. She said the hats could boost morale and help distinguish deputies from city police officers.
“It brings back the tradition of the Texas sheriff and their deputies,” she said. “If you want to wear a cowboy hat, it is now authorized,” she told deputies who were gathered outside the Bexar County Courthouse.
Not authorized are western hats with flat brims or decorations such as feathers.
Although the announcement comes just ahead of the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo, Pamerleau said the new uniform policy applies year-round.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Stetson-hats-are-in-again-at-Sheriff-s-Office-4233022.php#ixzz2JZsOAJt0

Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months



For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.
After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings.

READ MORE »

URGENT VOTE: Stop F-16s to Egypt!

 
 
 
 
 
 
RAND-PAC

Dear Friends,

While they burn our flags and murder our citizens, our President seems to think throwing more taxpayer money to our enemies overseas is the solution to our problems.

In fact, the Pentagon recently handed over 20 fighter jets - $213 million dollars worth - to a Muslim Brotherhood-led government determined to impose Sharia Law on Egypt.

Today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my Amendment to prohibit the sale of fighter jets to Egypt.

Please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 IMMEDIATELY and demand they support my Amendment at every opportunity.

Of course, these fighter jets are part of the BILLION dollars in taxpayer money our government hands out each year in the name of "foreign aid."

The last thing we should be doing is handing F-16s to our enemies.

So please call your U.S. Senators IMMEDIATELY at (202) 224-3121 and demand they support my Amendment to prohibit the sale of F-16's to Egypt.

You see, at the same time we're giving Israel 25 fighter jets, our government turns around and hands 20 of them to a nation that's leader wants to destroy Israel.

Richard, it's this type of insanity I'm going to try to put an end to today with my Amendment to prohibit the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Egypt!

Will you join me in standing up for American values and American taxpayers by calling your U.S. Senators and urging them to support my Amendment?

Will you help me stop the doling out of money our nation doesn't have to people who do not act like our allies?

You can reach your Senators at (202) 224-3121. Demand they vote for my Amendment to prohibit the sale of F-16's to Egypt.

Let them know you oppose doling out taxpayer dollars to anti-American nations overseas.

The vote is expected to take place this afternoon, so please call your Senators IMMEDIATELY!

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. Take a moment and watch the brief video I've put together about selling F-16's to Egypt, and please chip in $50, $25 or $10 to help RandPAC put an end to the madness.
 
 
 
RANDPAC website RANDPAC on Facebook
Share this on social media Forward this email to a friend
 

Record withdrawals at U.S. banks as Americans lose trust in financial system





You probably haven't heard much about it from the mainstream media, but the latest figures released by the privately-owned Federal Reserve (FED) indicate that America's largest banks saw record cash withdrawals during the first full week of January 2013. As reported by Bloomberg Businessweek and scant others, account holders withdrew a record $114 billion in just one week, which represents the largest one-week withdrawal sum made in America since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The data, which accounts for all cash withdrawals made from the nation's 25 largest banks, has reportedly shocked many financial analysts who say they are unsure exactly what sparked this minor bank run. Some have speculated that the December 31, 2012 expiration of the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) insurance program, which was designed to protect smaller banks from insolvency, may have played a role in triggering what appears to have been a wave of panic withdrawals.

But since the bulk of these withdrawals were made at larger banks that were not covered by TAG, this explanation hardly suffices. Another more likely explanation is that Americans are simply unsettled with the current state of the financial system, and for all intents and purposes are trying to protect their own assets from insolvency. This is further reinforced by the fact that a similar run on "physical" gold escalated around the exact same time, suggesting that depositors are anticipating rocky times rapidly approaching.

"[W]hat surprised analysts is that the withdrawals are from larger banks that were considered safe," explains a report from AllVoices.com about the issue. "Expectations were for depositors in small and medium banks to put their deposits in the bigger banks when the insurance program ended," it adds, noting that TAG's expiration would have logically induced the opposite effect of what actually occurred.

Though many so-called experts are reluctant to admit it as a possibility, this ongoing trend of massive withdrawals of federal reserve notes and physical metal assets from banks and vaults just might be the people's way of responding to the ominous writing on the wall, which does not appear to spell any type of real recovery for America. To the contrary, a perfect storm of attempted gun control legislation, ever-increasing taxes, inflation, reduced wages, and job cuts may finally be getting the attention of a critical mass of Americans, who for too long have ignored the progressive downfall of the financial system.
 http://www.allvoices.com

Also see

http://www.washingtontimes.com


A Blow to Obama’s Imperial Presidency







President Obama has gone around Congress in as many ways as he can find. One way is by abusing the presidential power to make appointments to government positions during a supposed Senate recess—in an attempt to avoid having the Senate confirm the nominees.
Last week, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt quite a blow: It ruled that a number of President Obama’s “recess appointments” were invalid.
As Todd Gaziano, director of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said: “Our unilateral president must take his unilateral medicine.”
Heritage’s James Gattuso explains:
To sidestep opposition in the Senate, the President declared these to be “recess” appointments, invoking his prerogative to fill vacancies without Senate confirmation when that body is not in session. The action was roundly criticized on the grounds that although the Senate was not actively conducting legislative business, it was formally still in session.
The judges issued an even broader ground for striking down the unconstitutional appointments, holding that President Obama could make valid recess appointments only during an intersession “recess” that occurs between annual sessions of Congress, and that recess appointments also cannot be made unless the position becomes vacant during the Senate’s valid intersession recess. This brings up huge questions for all the unconstitutional appointees who have now been declared invalid—and the regulations they have created during their time in office.
There’s the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which had two members appointed in this way. Gaziano notes that “13 months’ worth of rulings, regulations, and other actions by the NLRB are now in question, because without the illegal recess appointments the NLRB lacked a quorum to act during all that time.”
And then there’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose director, Richard Cordray, was another of these invalid appointments. The bureau has been regulating away for the past year, but Gattuso writes that “the new rules adopted by the CFPB under Cordray will likely be invalidated.”
Gattuso describes the CFPB as “perhaps the least accountable entity in the federal government”—so this is good news.
The odds are that this imbroglio will stall the CFPB’s regulatory agenda for some time. That, however, is no bad thing for consumers. The rules adopted by the CFPB, by limiting lender activity, decrease options for consumers and increase costs for mortgages and other loans. Reining them in could actually be a boon for consumer welfare.
There’s a reason the Senate is supposed to confirm these nominees—and in the case of the CFPB, the agency itself merits closer scrutiny. The judges’ decision is a welcome check on Obama’s abuses of power.
LEARN MORE:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Its Non-Director: What Now? by James L. Gattuso
Quick Hits:
  • Another Obamacare “glitch” has come to light—and this one means that “some families could get priced out of health insurance,” according to the Associated Press.
  • Federal agencies aren’t doing a very good job of listening to the public about new rules and regulations. And when they do receive comments, bureaucrats are likely to ignore them.
  • In honor of School Choice Week, the Acton Institute answers some frequently asked questions about school choice.
  • Another Cabinet position is opening up: the Secretary of Transportation is leaving.
  • Ernest Istook has a new co-host on Istook Live!: C.J. Wheeler. Listen in this morning from 9 a.m. to noon ET as they continue the conversation about the push for gun control.
Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets, Rule of Law
 
 
 
Amy Payne

The economy is a lot worse than you think





Most Americans know the economy is in bad shape even if a majority voted to reelect the man most responsible for making a bad economy worse. And, no, it was not George W. Bush who is responsible for the 2008 financial crash. It was the government with its housing programs that encouraged giving mortgage loans to those who could not afford them and then bundling those "toxic assets," and selling them to banks who then found themselves in trouble for investing in them.

Another partner in the nation's financial woes has been the Federal Reserve, a banking cartel given the right to literally print money. The Fed recently released the fact that its holdings in U.S. government debt has increased by 257 percent since President Obama took office! Those holdings are at an all-time record of $1,696,691,000,000 at the close of business on Wednesday, January 23. The other major holder of our debt is China at $1,170,100,000.000.

It's worth taking a few minutes to see how the policies of President Obama, whether a deliberate effort to ruin the economy or just the result a lack of understanding of how the U.S. economy works, has put the U.S. on the precipice of failure comparable to what is occurring in Europe. It is a global, as well as national problem as the central banks of the EU desperately transfer billions among themselves to stave off a catastrophe that will destroy the wealth of their citizens.

The federal government ran a deficit (the difference between what it owes and what revenues it takes in) of $292 billion for the first two months of fiscal year 2013 – October and November 2012 – amounting to $4.8 billion of borrowed money every day. The Congressional Budget Office reported that federal revenues rose by $30 billion – a ten percent increase over last year – but spending increased even more, going up by $87 billion (16%).

Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security was about 7% higher – $8 billion than last year. For years, Congress has resisted reforming these "entitlement" programs and Obamacare has only exacerbated the problem. In order to fund its establishment, the Obama administration took $716 billion from the Medicare funds. The Social Security funds have been "borrowed" by Congress for years while the numbers of eligible senior citizens has steadily increased as "baby boomers" come of age.

The call for higher taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" has fallen hardest on the middle class, in reality increasing taxes on them. The reality is that the middle class taxpayer pays 25% of their income in federal income tax these days, but when you add in 13.3% in the federal Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, it adds up to 38.3%. According to the Tax Foundation, the average state's income tax rate on the middle class is 4.82% (not all states have an income tax in addition to the federal government.) That brings the total to $43.12% of middle class income drained off to pay taxes.

Add in all the other taxes we pay on gasoline, telephones, and other necessities, and the middle class is being tapped for half their earnings.

The Republican Party, in power in the House of Representatives, has offered legislation to bring some relief to middle class and other taxpayers. It has sent annual budgets to the Senate where they have died for the past three years.

All this has been happening during the first term of the Obama administration. In a January 25th commentary posted on AmericanThinker.com, Steve McCann noted that "As of the end of 2012, the United States has experienced the worst five-year period – which includes, as the end of the final four years, Obama's first full term – since 1928-1932 and the start of the Great Depression."

McCann cited that fact that, since January 2008, the employment age population has increased by 11.7 million, yet there are 3.0 million fewer Americans employed. "Factoring in the population growth and 2008 labor participation rate, the unemployment rate for December 2012 would be 11.4% as compared to 4.9% in December of 2007."

"At the end of 2007, the median household income was $54,489 (inflation adjusted); at the beginning of 2012, it had dropped to $50,020 – a decline of nearly 9%." During this same time, while incomes were eroding, the cost of living increased 20% from December 2007 to September 2012.

There are other stark statistics that the mainstream media tends to under-report. In December 2007, there were 26.5 million Americans on food stamps at a cost of $30 billion. By December 2012, 47.4 million were using this program and the federal government was running advertising to get more to apply for it. During Obama's first term, food stamp recipients increased at a rate of 11,133 per day!

No matter how one measures the U.S. economy, the news is bad and holds little promise of improving. Economic growth is anemic as Obama increased debt $50,521 per household in his first term, more than the first 42 presidents in 53 terms combined.

An excellent monthly publication, Budget and Tax News, published by The Heartland Institute, is a very good way to gain the information and insight you need to understand these issues.

No need to wonder why Obama wants to increase the debt ceiling and no need to wonder why his policies continue to cripple the economy, whether it's the failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline or to rein in an avalanche of economy-killing regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Obamacare contained 18 hidden taxes when it was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that didn't even read its more than 2,000 pages.

At some point this combination of increased taxes, low employment, and stagnant economic growth has to implode. That outcome can be avoided, but the nation is running out of time.


Alan Caruba

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

THE LETTER 1,100 GREEN BERETS SIGNED FOR PROTECTION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

 
 
 
 
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned


We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world.
In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “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.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes 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”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense 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.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….” “The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind? The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family
had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.


by AKA John Galt
 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Refuses to Endorse Assault Weapons Ban

Well, it sounds like someone in the Democratic party remembers the spanking the Democrats received in the elections following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
According to TheHill.com, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declined to endorse senior California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban.
This legislation is dying a slow death and Feinstein is already crying foul over the witnesses selected for the Senate’s hearing on gun violence.
From TheHill.com: “She’s talked to me about her assault weapons. The new one. She believes in it fervently and I admire her for that. I’ll take a look at that,” he said in response to a reporter’s question. “We’re going to have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns, and I think everyone would be well advised to read the legislation before they determine how they’re going to vote [on] it.”
The assault weapons ban is certainly the 800lb gorilla in the Senate, but just because it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere right now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant about the dozens of other bills that have already been and will be introduced in both the Senate and the House.

Read the full article here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/279895-reid-declines-to-e...



How Would St. John Bosco Teach the Narcissistic Child?


Imagine for a moment that you’re a Catholic school teacher and you suddenly realize that all of your students have a very high value of themselves. And, upon realizing this fascinating phenomenon you also realize that the majority of yours students do not associate this high value with the image the carry as children of God. Gasp! For those of us who have had the pleasure of studying and applying the educational system of St. John Bosco (Preventive System), this sudden realization may not sound so daunting.

St. John Bosco was in short one of the greatest teachers of the Catholic faith, especially in reaching the young men of his day. His proving ground was the very difficult streets of Turin, Italy where the theological virtue of charity was more hoped for than seen on a daily basis. Knowing the environment he had to work with Don Bosco made it his aim for “his boys” to see themselves as children of God. He desired to “save their souls.”

There was no miscommunication on St. John Bosco’s part to reach the souls of these boys. Because of his direct, stern, yet loving approach many children were taken aback on how direct he was towards them a “fight fire with fire” approach but with Christ at the center.

The Preventive System and the Narcissistic Child

So how would St. John Bosco deal with a group of unruly narcissistic Children? The Preventive System is an approach based on three core principles: Reason, Religion, and Kindness. Each principle has a specific point to bring the child closer to Christ.

The Principle of Reason provides a reasonable atmosphere where the child would be given the opportunity to consent to instruction and guidance. The goal of this first principle is to develop good Christians and useful citizens. The teacher must be the bridge to a child’s discovery of the world through patience, diligence, and prayer.

The Principle of Religion stressed the ugliness of sin and the value of living a virtuous life. The aim is to develop the intellectual and physical gifts the child possesses and how he can be directed toward a greater good. There are five steps within this principle to help youth attain personal holiness:

1. Holiness of ordinary life

2. The joy and optimism of holiness

3. Centrality of Confession

4. The Holy Eucharist

5. Love of Mary

The Principle of Kindness emphasizes the virtue of love. St. John Bosco would stress: “Let us make ourselves loved, and we shall possess their hearts.” In other words, our Christian witness must be constant for the development of the child. The learning environment should be warm and inviting, not cold. The family spirit reigned; he did this through rapport, friendliness, presence, respect, attention, dedication to service, and personal responsibility.

The core of all three principles of the Preventive System is to draw the child away from a view that only he exists and no one else. As the last principle stressed; “the family spirit reigned.” We want the child to know that he is part of God’s plan by the very fact he was created in His image and likeness. This in turn will help the child view others in the same light.

What made St. John Bosco’s methods so effective was his willingness to go into the heart of the child regardless of his state in life and see Christ in him. Wisdom tells us these methods not only served St. John Bosco well; they can also reawaken our relationship with Christ. The goal is to foster productive Catholic citizens who seek to assist others before themselves. When teaching others about his preventive system St. John Bosco would always remind his students: “Get them to love you and they’ll follow you anywhere.”

St. John Bosco, patron of all Catechists and Youth, pray for us!

MORE

SHOCKING: Hillary opens up about Obama?




Glenn Beck issued the following statement at the end of the segment above:
“We’d like to just issue a statement here on the Glenn Beck Program that it’s come to our attention that Hillary Clinton tape may or may not have been edited.”
“We don’t have time to discuss it anymore.”
Original Story:
Hillary Clinton has a few days left at her post of secretary of state, but that didn’t stop her from opening up, rather candidly, on last night’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.
“I was shocked to see video last night, live, Hillary Clinton on television talking, you know, talking about how her and her husband feel about the president of the United States,” Glenn said on radio this morning.
Many people were surprised that Clinton would grant an exit interview to Fox News, and it looks as though people are even more surprised by her honesty and criticism of the Obama administration.
The love-fest on display during Clinton and President Obama’s sit down on 60 Minutes earlier this week was clearly short lived:
CLINTON: But you have to I think take a step back and look at the fact that the people now in power have never been in government, never had a chance to really learn how to run agencies. You do get the impression that he and the team around him are trying to deal with the economy that is in very bad shape. And some of what he’s done we have approved of and supported and some of what he’s done, like abrogating a lot of power unto himself, personally reinstating emergency law provisions, are troubling. And, you know…
 
 
“So she’s throwing the people under the bus saying, you know, some of the people in the administration around him that are running the government, they have never run government before,” Glenn said. “It’s true… But what I thought was shocking was she said some of the stuff they agree with but other things they don’t and one of them is taking so much power on and giving it to himself.”
As refreshing as it may be to hear Clinton call attention to some of the many flaws of the Obama administration, Glenn took issue with the fact she kept her mouth shut until she was on her way out the door.
“It would have been nice to hear her say that [before],” Glenn said.
“Well, you said this before, Glenn,” Stu responded. “Sometimes when you’re an official in the administration, it’s your job to kind of maintain the administration line and once you leave that office, you’re freer to speak your mind.”
Everything Clinton said was entirely truthful. In fact, she voiced concern over many of the things Glenn and others have been talking about for years now, but we are just not used to this kind of honesty from her. While it would be nice to think that Clinton is being sincere, it’s probably safe to say she had more self-serving interests in mind.
“She’s out of the administration,” Glenn concluded. “And she’s already starting to run for, you know, 2016.”

Hillary Clinton Greta Van Susteren Talk Benghazi & Foreign Policy
 



Published on Jan 29, 2013
 
Hillary Clinton Talks Benghazi With Greta Van Susteren. Foreign Policy Interview.. Hillary Clinton sat down tonight with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren in an interview that touched on everything from Egypt and the United States' relationship with President Mohammed Morsi to dealing with threats from Iran and how the State Department is handling the aftermath of last September's attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi. On the latter, Clinton said the State Department is following recommendations by an accountability review board.

RELATED: Greta Blasts Fox News Colleagues Who Got 'Snarky' On-Air About Hillary Clinton's Concussion

Van Susteren opened by asking Clinton about the current state of Egypt, given a comment by the head of the military that the nation could very well collapse. Clinton acknowledged a "period of adjustment" that is still unfolding in the region following the events of the Arab Spring, while making it clear the United States and the international community needs to be working toward not "see[ing] these revolutions hijacked by extremists" and an end to the rule of law. She said there are challenges for any nation that has suddenly woken up from a "political coma and understanding democracy."

The result of Egyptians embracing democracy was the election of Morsi to the presidency, and Van Susteren asked Clinton if there is any concern about the U.S. relationship with Morsi, given past statements of his about the Israeli people. Clinton said the administration's initial concerns were assuaged by swift condemnation by the Egyptian presidency, and pointed out that as problematic as the current regime may be, it is important to avoid "even more extreme elements... taking control of territory."

Clinton credited Morsi as being a man with the "right intentions," but made it clear the administration is very troubled by his attempt to amass more power and reinstate emergency law provisions that were common under former president Hosni Mubarak. Van Susteren admitted she is "very suspicious" of Morsi because he granted a state visit to Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. Clinton said the United States has consistently engaged with nations welcoming Bashir with open arms because "he does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch."

Van Susteren brought up Iran and asked what the United States is doing to deal with Iran potentially obtaining a nuclear weapon. Clinton emphasized that the U.S. is focused on "prevention, not containment." When Van Susteren pressed Clinton on what options could be taken to stop Iran, Clinton affirmed that all options are on the table. She said there needs to be more crackdowns on terrorist activity connected to Iran, adding that "we'll be issuing more sanctions" in the future. As for Iran's official denials of any nuclear weapons program, Clinton said she is a believer in "trust but verify" in these situations.

Van Susteren then turned the conversation to Benghazi. She asked Clinton if the State Department is doing enough to provide more security for its ambassadors and diplomats around the world, and if the United States should even go back to Benghazi. Clinton detailed how the administration is following the recommendations of an accountability review board, while explaining the problem of sufficient security funding. It's not all a question of money. I am the first to say that. You know, you have to have the right people and the right job, making the right decisions. But money is a factor. And ever since the Bush administration, our requests for security monies from Congress have not been met. So you've had to make priority decisions. And it's been difficult.

Clinton also defended U.S. involvement in Libya in the first place, saying that "we believe being there is in America's national interests, particularly our security interests."

Senate Judiciary Chair Rejects Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee did not endorse colleague Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban at a packed Capitol Hill hearing on guns Wednesday in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called for “common sense reform,” that closes loopholes in current gun laws and enforces background checks. Buthe did not endorse Feinstein’s tougher ban. “I know gun store owners in Vermont,” Leahy said. “They follow the law and conduct background checks…why should we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow (criminals and the mentally ill) to buy guns without background checks?”

The rebuffed California Democrat plans to hold her own hearing in her Judiciary subcommittee on her legislation, which is strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has also refused to back a ban on military-style weapons and high-capacity clips. Reid’s position reflects the political fact that a whole bevy of conservative Democrats do not support Feinstein’s ban.

Former Arizona Rep. Gabriel Giffords opened the hearing. As a House Democrat from a gun friendly district, Giffords opposed stricter gun laws, but since being shot in the head by a crazed gunman while holding an event in her district has reversed her position. Giffords, accompanied by her husband, gave a halting and brief but extremely forceful opening statement.

“Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important,” Giffords said. “Too many children are dying
We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be courageous, Americans are counting on you.”

Her husband Mark Kelly gave equally forceful testimony, noting both he and Giffords are gun owners. He said the Arizona gunman who shot his wife in 15 seconds emptied his magazine of 33 bullets, “and there were 33 wounds,” including a fatal shot to a young child. Kelly said one of the most important things to do is close the gun show loophole and require all sellers to require a background check. “I can’t think of something that would make our country safer than doing just that,” Kelly said.

David Kopel, an adjunct Professor of constitutional law at Denver University, said universal background checks “are only enforceable with universal gun registration,” which in other countries has left gun ownership “in serious peril.”

Kopel said teachers should be allowed to be armed, as they are in Utah. “Armed defense in schools is the immediate and best choice,” he said.

Gayle Trotter, an attorney and senior fellow at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, said guns “make women safer,” because they “reverse the balance of power in a violent confrontation” between a male attacker and a weaker female. “An armed woman does not need superior strength” in a hand-to-hand struggle, Trotter said.

Government Gave 4,317 Aliens 2 Social Security Numbers a Piece





A report from the Social Security Administration Inspector General (IG) found 4,317 instances where a non-citizen was able to obtain two Social Security numbers, including 542 instances that happened since 2001.
“We identified 4,317 instances where the Numident record of 2 SSNs assigned to noncitizens contained matching first, middle, and last names; dates and places of birth; gender; and fathers’ and mothers’ names,” the IG reported on Dec. 10, 2012.
Numident – which stands for Numerical Identification System – is the master file of applications for social security numbers. The IG found that SSA had issued multiple numbers to 4,317 non-citizens from 1981-2011.
The IG found that the errors occurred because SSA did not cross-check the names of the people applying for an additional Social Security number.
“In each case, SSA had not cross-referred the records, indicating that SSA either was not aware it assigned two SSNs to the same noncitizen or it believed the number-holders were not actually the same person.”
The review was initiated after a non-citizen was convicted of defrauding the government out of $55,000 in Social Security and federal housing payments by using two Social Security numbers, the report said. While no further fraud was found, the IG acknowledged that the potential for fraud still existed.
“We did not identify any instances where SSA issued benefit payments under both SSNs [social security numbers]. However, we identified other activity on these records that indicated potential abuse or fraud.”
The IG found 514 cases where a non-citizen had reported work under both numbers, making them appear eligible to receive double the federal benefits. In 80 of those cases, at least 10 years of earnings had been reported under both numbers.
Surprisingly, most multiples were issued by the same office, meaning that a non-citizen obtained a Social Security number from a Social Security office and then returned to that same office and obtained a second number, despite using duplicate information.
A total of 3,320 multiples were given by the same office, with nearly half of those being issued within a week. The report said 1,252 multiples were issued by the same office within a week’s time – 251 multiples were issued by the same office in the same day - and 216 of those same office, same day multiples were issued prior to 2000.
In all, the IG found that SSA has gotten much better since 2001 at preventing the issuance of multiple Social Security numbers to non-citizens but was not successful at preventing it entirely.
“SSA controls designed to prevent issuance of multiple SSNs to noncitizens have been effective at preventing these occurrences, and the number of such cases has declined significantly over the past 30 years. However, SSA’s records indicated that, on occasion, the controls did not prevent the unauthorized issuance of multiple SSNs to noncitizens,” the report concluded.
“Noncitizens who obtain multiple SSNs have used, or could use, the SSNs to defraud Federal benefit programs or to conceal work activity.”

Justice Scalia: The Constitution is Dead



 I know what Scalia means, but part of me couldn’t help but think there was a little irony in the Justice’s recent pronouncement: “[The Constiution’s] not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!” Speaking to a group at Southern Methodist University, Scalia was promoting what he considers a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution.
The debate on how to interpret the Constitution is older than the Constitution.
Most of the Founding Fathers were strict constructionists (as you would imagine… since they drafted the document. Of course they wanted it interpreted as it was written). Over time, as high technology and low morals altered the nature of American society and politics, the question started to arise more and more: “Isn’t this document a little outdated? But rather than re-write it, why not just interpret it freshly for our modern circumstances?” Which basically meant, “Why not just ignore the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and just draw from the Constitution whatever we want it to say…”


Obama Job Approval Rating Lower than Nixon's




According to Gallup, President Obama is tied with George W. Bush for most unpopular re-elected president since Gallup began measuring presidential job-approval in 1945.

In fact, Gallup found that apart from Bush, "every president...has had a higher job-approval rating in the January following his reelection than Obama has."
Obama's approval rating is at 52.
Think about it this way--following reelection, President Reagan's approval numbers beat Obama's by 11 points, President Eisenhower's beat Obama's by 21, and a much-derided Republican President named Richard Nixon beat Obama's numbers by 7.
Hardly representative of a mandate and certainly a long way from supporting the misconception that Obama is lauded by the public while Republicans are despised.

Negative Growth: Economy Tanks in Fourth Quarter

 
 


Yesterday, Breitbart News reported that consumer confidence had dropped to its lowest level in almost two years. Much of the media spun the number as the result of a payroll tax increase that hit millions who were repeatedly told by Obama that only the rich would see their taxes increase. Surprise! But the spin didn't explain why consumer confidence had steadily dropped during the months prior. Well, now we know: The American economy has taken a nosedive.

Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved






Watch this SHOCK video about our government's "cradle to the grave" entitlement society! Become a "fan" on Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/govgonewild...

Former President Ronald Reagan's childhood Chicago home set to be demolished

This is the Chicago home where Ronald Reagan grew up and played with his brother and neighbors


The Chicago home where the late President Ronald Reagan grew up is slated to be demolished and potentially turned into a parking lot for President Obama's Library, it was revealed today.

The home, at 832 E. 57th Street, was where Reagan survived a near-fatal bout of pneumonia in 1915 and he has written fondly of playing in the Hyde Park neighborhood with his brother and others.

But the University of Chicago has recently purchased the apartment building and they have announced plans to raze it and make it a parking lot.


article continues here

The Weekly Standard


COLD OPEN
I'm often struck by the dichotomy of liberal impulses. Liberals have long sought to ban smoking tobacco, but they want to legalize smoking pot. They don't want America fighting wars, but they want American servicewomen in combat. They're against the death penalty for society's worst criminals but in favor of abortion for society's most vulnerable and innocent lives.

Morningland Dairy- The Final Solution




On August 26th, 2010 the destruction of Morningland Dairy began. Having lost a two and half year battle with cancer of the State, the interment will take place on January 25th, 2013.

Never forget this!






The United States is a Constitutional Republic and our Government governs with and by our Consent! Our government has grown so large that it is fast forgetting this important message that was written into our governing documents starting with the "Declaration of independence" and articles of confederation which was replaced with our "Constitution" Reading Thomas Jefferson reminds the reader that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with personal protection or hunting or sport! it was specifically written to warn government that the people have the right to remove them by force if or when they become unresponsive to the citizens.

As a Constitutional republic our laws were designed to protect citizen minorities from the majority where a democracy has the exact opposite affect and allows any majority to infringe on the freedoms of all minorities!

The best simple way to look at that is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner!

It seems that the world goes in cycles and governments come and go, some governments are based on freedom while others are repressive. Young healthy governments respect freedom and old established ones seen to loose that insight.

Are we fast approaching a time when we must replace the old entrenched government ? IF SO do we have men of wisdom and insight equal to the task like our nation had in 1776 ?

Freedom is not free ! are you personally willing to pay the price for freedom?

Back in 1776 our founders trusted their neighbors but did not trust the kings men who ruled them?

Who do you trust ?



by James C. Watson

Standing On Our Own Two Feet

I have been part of the patriot movement well before tea parties came into existence – doing my best to educate the public about the unpublicized assaults against our Constitution. Unfortunately, all our noble attempts have not been able to stay the successful coup de tat that has gone nearly unnoticed by the general public.

Operation : Raise Hell


Tea Party News

Obama's Lying About His Shooting

If there are truthers and birthers, should there now be a new term for those who are doubting President Obama’s claim that he goes skeet shooting “all the time”? And should that term be “skeeters”? If so, count CNN’s rising young star Erin Burnett among the gadflies.

During a segment on Monday night, Burnett took over two minutes to dissect the president’s shooting claim — and she found it wanting ...
(more)
forward to a friend


Raise Hell


We have been saying ”we are as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore”,

those days are over!


Time to lock and load!



Tea Party.org is going to demand the deportation of Piers Morgan, write Gun Owners of America a big fat check and your Tea Party Team is going face to face with Congressmen!

WANT TO HELP US RAISE HELL?
Get this: The Lame Stream Media’s Spokes-Hole Piers Morgan has just become the Official Hater of America’s Second Amendment, and the poster boy for confiscating every last gun in America...and tossing you into prison if you don’t comply.LET’S DEPORT HIS POMPOUS ASS BACK TO BRITAIN AND RUB HIS NOSE IN IT AT THE SAME TIME!
Get this, are we going to do our best to deport this liberal media spokes-hole, and we are going to fund the “Youth Firearms Training Initiative” taught by our good friends at Gun Owners Of American, President Larry Pratt! This should piss off a few liberal lamebrains! But it doesn’t stop there!

We are going to send our Tea Party Team to Washington for one-on-one meeting with Congressmen urging them to wake up and reject any gun grabbing!


We have a 3 prong approach:

1. Demand the Deportation of Piers Morgan!

2. Fund: “Youth Firearms Training Initiative”

3. Face To Face! Tea Party Team in the Halls of Congress!


Keep reading for this incredible opportunity to rub liberal blowhard’s nose in it and send a blistering message to all haters of the Second Amendment...

Liberals are haters of America’s Second Amendment and Piers Morgan is no different. Piers Morgan used his prominent media position to exploit gun control and to twist the facts about gun fatalities. If he had his way, he would confiscate every last gun in America, trashing our Second Amendment right to bear arms, leaving Americans utterly defenseless. If you didn’t comply? He’d have you thrown into prison. His own words.

Read it for yourself! Click -> "Gun Crazy Laws"

The Tea Party and Gun Owners say:

Take Your Globalist Ideas and Get Out!

Morgan suggested he may “self-deport” We should be so lucky.

So let’s help throw him out like yesterday’s garbage! We don’t need traitors to the American Constitution or strippers of our Second Amendment rights –not to mention from someone who isn’t even a citizen of the U.S. - telling us we can’t have our firearms. If you haven’t seen the interview where Morgan discusses his “solution” to solving the problem of massacres of innocent people - in gun-free zones, see it here.

If you are not as mad as hell yet, then watch this video!

Sit down and buckle up!


It’ll blow you away and make you so mad you can’t see straight.


Piers Morgan – Media Spokes-Hole and Larry Pratt – President/Gun Owners of America
Can you believe this pompous blithering ass? He’s using his media influence to bully America. We’re not going to take it. Here at the Tea Party Command Center we decided, “To hell with him. He can go straight back to where he came from if he doesn’t like our Second Amendment.” That is exactly what we intend to do.

Want more information? Here it is! We’d like to invite you to join us in our:


  • Demand Piers Morgan deported!
  • Fund “Youth Firearms Training Initiative”!
  • Face To Face – Tea Party Team To Washington – Get In Their Faces!


Already a petition created on the White House e-petition website by a resident of Texas has garnered more than 90,000 signatures in show of support to deport Piers Morgan. The petition accuses Morgan of engaging in a “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution” by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for “exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”
The sooner this British boob is gone the better off we will be. He knows nothing of the statistics he sites. He’s out there on national news trumpeting the lack of shootings in Britain and Australia after they took guns away from their citizens. Well now, he leaves out that the violent crime rates in those countries has SKYROCKETED. There are mass murders throughout Europe now. People in Australia are pleading with America not to follow their path. Perhaps Piers Morgan should check with the FBI who revealed that in 2011 there were more deaths with clubs and blunt objects than there were by guns.
What about in India where the police won’t protect the women? Women are now signing massive petitions requesting the right to get guns. The people need a means of protection. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez…they all took the guns and look what happened. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
Let’s do a turnabout and quote Mr. Morgan from his own brash dialogue hurled at Mr. Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America in a recent interview—only we’ll turn the tables as shout at him:

It’s time we demand Piers Morgan deported and rub his nose in it by funding the “Youth Firearms Training Initiative” and then going Face To Face with Congressmen.


Are you with us?!We are sending a message to all gun-grabbers!
Here’s what we are going to do...

TeaParty.org is raising funds for “Operation – Raise Hell” and we are going to sponsor the Gun Owners of America with a big fat check!
We will get this campaign going and accomplish three great things:
1. Send the British Spokes-hole, Piers Morgan, packing back to Britain. A one way ticket to a place where the people have no protection and are utterly defenseless because the British government took their guns away. This is the best part because it does so much good—and it’ll really piss off the lame-stream media and it’s gun grabbing ilk. The Tea Party is sick of all the haters of the Second Amendment, including democraps like Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid and Obama. After we have the funds to deport Piers Morgan, then….

2. Fund - “Youth Firearms Training Initiative” We are going to write a big fat check to Larry Pratt’s “Gun Owners of America” to go toward a Tea Party sponsored new initiative to develop a “Youth Firearms Training Initiative” designed to reach out to our future generations and teach them the responsibilities and rights involved in proper ownership, care and usage of a firearm. The highly respected and credentialed Gun Owners of America will undertake this exciting endeavor!

3. In Their Face – Our Tea Party Team is going to Washington. We intend to get in the faces of Congressmen who think they can shank the American people by grabbing our guns! We will camp out if necessary on the steps of the Halls Of Congress!

The Tea is boiling get in line or keep out of the way!

Here’s what we want you to do:

If you’re ready to lock and load then join the Tea Party/TeaParty.org as we support Gun Owners of America in our pursuit to protect America’s Second Amendment rights and fund the Youth Firearms Training Initiative of tomorrow’s leaders and take the fight to Washington then this is for you! This is a first for America and it’s your opportunity to be a part of what is sure to be an overwhelming success and make a difference in America’s future, our youth!
Donate now to let your voice heard over the perilous threatening throngs of liberal media as represented by the loathsome Piers Morgan. Let’s send them all a message loud of clear.

This is it. We have dedicated all of our resources to Raise Hell and save America. Are you with us?



We owe America the truth about “America’s Fraud President” and Obama’s coming coup.

America’s Children Thank You

Someday your children will thank you for saving their future from Obama’s Soviet-Style Socialist State.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

p.s. Still pissed-off want to do more? Hell Ya! We’re in for it.

Check this out!