Signals collection has a long secretive and enigmatic history. The very definition of espionage implies spying, most closely associated with foreign sources. Since the Echelon network, the unified function of data retrieval became a given during the cold war. With the revelation of Prism, advances in sophisticated electronic devices and software algorithms provide a major leap. The article, Is PRISM the US version of Echelon?, sums up the evolution. “With this kind of setup and ambition to capture and evaluate private conversations (well, not so private now), makes Echelon that much more believable, and that PRISM is a reflection of the infamous project, but focused solely on the US.”
Bankwatch takes a sanguine attitude towards Why PRISM? ECHELON has been around since 1948 supported by US, UK, Canada, Australia. At the same time, the publication references the capacities of the original analogue technology.
“The ECHELON system is fairly simple in design: position intercept stations all over the world to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic, and then process this information through the massive computer capabilities of the NSA, including advanced voice recognition and optical character recognition (OCR) programs, and look for code words or phrases (known as the ECHELON Dictionary) that will prompt the computers to flag the message for recording and transcribing for future analysis. Intelligence analysts at each of the respective listening stations maintain separate keyword lists for them to analyze any conversation or document flagged by the system, which is then forwarded to the respective intelligence agency headquarters that requested the intercept.”
This machinery of electronic snooping has no instinctive restraint on the subject or content, when the technocratic engineers are left to design the next level of the “All Seeing Eye”. The notion that the Prism program is shocking certainly does not conform to the even increasing capacity of surveillance society that has already discarded the presumption of privacy.
The Wall Street Journal forecasts the total integration of data because Technology Emboldened the NSA, to capture all that is digital.
“At a 2009 conference on so-called cloud computing, an NSA official said the agency was developing a new system by linking its various databases and using Hadoop software to analyze them, according to comments reported by the trade publication InformationWeek.
The system would hold “essentially every kind of data there is,” said Randy Garrett, who was then director of technology for the NSA’s integrated intelligence program. “The object is to do things that were essentially impossible before.”
Nonetheless, the Director of National Intelligence issues fact sheet on PRISM in response to leaks, wants you to accept that the government is adhering to stature authority and protecting vital national security interests. “While focusing on the letter of the law and the government’s good intentions, Clapper dodges any mention of how much information (or what kind) is actually collected with the PRISM program.”
OK, only a blood brother operative of the intelligence community will challenge the proposition that the collection of electronic information is the main function of their Skynet self-aware artificial intelligence system. The true debate is whether the data collected is destined for use against targeted American citizens, for nefarious purposes.
Mashable attempts to explain the methodology of PRISM: Does the NSA Really Get Direct Access to Your Data?, and how the “so called” judicial review function of FISA Court approval is processed.
“For Ashkan Soltani, an independent privacy researcher and technologist, this is “a process for submitting [Section] 702 requests and getting responses in a machine-readable form.”
The 41-page PRISM Powerpoint presentation “could be seen as a business development deck indicating all the various providers that they currently have ‘relationships with,’” he told Mashable.
The system is “basically a data-ingestion API,” he said.
Soltani speculated that based on what we know now, PRISM is a “streamlined way” to submit Section 702 orders to the companies for them to review the requests, and it gives the NSA the ability to handle and process the response “in an automated fashion,” just like an app like TripIt, which automatically parses information from your flight reservations.”
According to the American Dream, the terminator assignment is being assembled. The disturbing use of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government, Main Core: A List Of Millions Of Americans That Will Be Subject To Detention During Martial Law, is the ultimate application of the individual dossiers that are generated from signals collection.
“Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, is collected and stored without warrants or court orders. The database’s name derives from the fact that it contains “copies of the ‘main core’ or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.”
Looking through the historic prism and behavioral pattern of the shadow government agencies, the lack of dramatic public outrage seems to be the only consistent factor out of the denial denizens that love to salute the flag, while willingly forfeiting their bill of right protections. This regretful conduct is seen in the example from, “Christopher Ketchum of Radar Magazine that first reported on the existence of Main Core. At the time, the shocking information that he revealed did not get that much attention. That is quite a shame, because it should have sent shockwaves across the nation…”
Now we are all supposed to empathize with the hysteria of the political careerist class over the disclosures of Edward Snowden. The bipartisan spots of the carnivore leopards never change. When John Boehner Calls Snowden a Traitor, he speaks for much of the establishment and equates loyalty to the state as the very definition of nationalism.
Again, the chronicle of the military-industrial-intelligence-complex is replete with treasonous deeds against the constitutional republic. Remember the Carnivore system implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that was designed to monitor email and electronic communications? Maybe your memory goes back to the archetype whistleblower. None other than the iconic Daniel Ellsberg speaks out on the current scandal in the Guardian letter, Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America.
“In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America’s intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – “at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left.”
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.”
Yes, Virginia our great founding fathers came from not only this old dominion, but had a state of mind that fought the revolutionary war against tyranny. The United Stasi of America is the definitive meaning of the evil empire that protects the globalist criminals that control the political apparatus, known as the federal government.
The echelon network of subversion and espying is but a rung on a ladder of a coercive control. The prism of deception is the false reality your controllers use to relinquish your will to oppose the repression. The secret intelligence agencies only serve their own bureaucratic interests as they obey their master operative superiors.
The disinformation culture is the permanent realism and the snitch society is an essential requirement necessary to keep the imperium in power. With the Americanization of domestic terrorists, Tea Party activists and the Patriotic Truth movement are in the sights of totalitarian gangsters.
Is there any doubt that the NSA, FBI and CIA act as if they are above the law and unaccountable? The great divide between legitimate authority and clandestine oppression is narrow and fragile. The essential question is who is the true enemy? As the surveillance technology perfects their reach and assimilates the application of their data assets, the military option under martial law intensifies. No one is safe. Big Brother has become the impending Terminator.
The Stasi Skynet engulfs everyone. There is no way out of the matrix as long as the globalists operate their spy network. The system is designed to eliminate any and all dissent. Overload the data collectors by intensifying the practice of liberty at every opportunity.
The authoritarian arrogance of the executive branch is defined by their tyrannical decrees. As any reader of BREAKING ALL THE RULES commentary, knows all too well, the dictatorship of central planning and unlawful administration has hijacked our federalist form of a constitutional republic. The primacy of the legislature over the executive branch was always the intent of our founding fathers. Unfortunately, the exact reverse has taken hold in the den of inequity that holds court in Washington, DC.
Thomas Jefferson was a staunch advocate of freedom of the press, asserting in a January 28, 1786, letter to James Currie (1745-1807), a Virginia physician and frequent correspondent during Jefferson’s residence in France: “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Without a vigorous and principled exposure of government abuses and crimes, Congress is unable to muster critical public support to hold accountable unelected bureaucratic agencies. These departments not only codify the regulations but also administer penalties and pick favored factions.In order to understand the nature of legislative oversight, the bipartisan betrayal of recent presidencies needs acknowledgement by every ideological viewpoint. Two current examples of such misuse of the public trust should outrage any honest citizen.
The subversion of the Obama regime sends a chilling message, intent to intimate and inhibit journalism. The Justice Department and Fox News’s Phone Records, also sets a fear factor in place against elected representatives that regularly interact with the press.
“William Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney, told The New Yorker this afternoon, “Because that information is sealed, I can’t confirm the owner or subscriber for any of those records.” Asked if the phone numbers of any reporters had been targeted in the Kim investigation, Miller said he could not comment.
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that, as part of the investigation of the Kim leak, Obama’s Department of Justice seized e-mails from Rosen’s personal Gmail account. In the search warrant for that request, the government described Rosen as “an aider, and abettor, and / or co-conspirator” in violating the Espionage Act, noting that the crime can be punished by ten years in prison. Rosen was not indicted in the case, but the suggestion in a government document that a reporter could be guilty of espionage for engaging in routine reporting is unprecedented and has alarmed many journalists and civil libertarians.”
Another and far more frightening perversion of George W. Bush’s “Gestapo Police” goes to the heart of the phony war on terror. The significance of filing the Antiwar.com Sues FBI After Secret Surveillance, spans every administration, because the surveillance society is the key component of the technocratic tyranny that operates well above the office of the presidency.
“The website’s founder and managing editor Eric Garris, along with longtime editorial director Justin Raimondo, filed a lawsuit in federal court today, demanding the release of records they believe the FBI is keeping on them and the 17-year-old online magazine.
The unidentified agent writing the memo concludes, “it is recommended that ECAU (Electronic Communications Analysis Unit) further monitor the postings on the website … it is recommended that a PI (preliminary investigation) is opened to determine if [line redacted] have engaged in, or are engaging in, activities which constitute a threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power.”
This is the decisive point of the memo as it pertains to Antiwar.com: that Garris and Raimondo and Antiwar.com, for writing about a particularly sensitive subject and for linking to information that is already circulating around the Internet, may be a “threat to national security on behalf of a foreign power,” and therefore subject to secret surveillance. That would make any journalist, who say, linked a story to documents published by Wikileaks, which is currently under federal investigation, suspect too, surmised the plaintiffs.”
Emphatically, these cases illustrate the systemic treason practiced by presidential hacks, crooks and appointees. The lesson for frustrated voters, per the latest Gallop Poll, Congress Approval Remains in a Slump, “Fifteen percent of Americans now approve of the way Congress is handling its job” clearly requires dramatic proactive involvement that demands House and Senate, constitutional oversight of executive agency exploitation.
Unfortunately, Congress has its own brand of shortcomings and scoundrels; often compounded by a lack of term limits and strictly enforced ethical accountability. However, the labyrinths of executive agencies are populated by wicked witches like IRS Lois Lerner, who hide for cover under Bill of Right protections, while violating the natural rights of taxpayers as a normal course of government extortion.Folks, the only built-in constitutional recourse are for the House to take back their legitimate authority of withholding budget funding for oppressive agencies. The phony charade of selecting a supreme junta dictator every four years has been exposed for the farce it has become. Meaningful reform is impossible, when the global corporatists control the process.
The merits of the 19th Century Whig Party supports for the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency have a resonance for our times. A viewing of the Whig Partyvideo provides a brief historical summary. While some of their positions are less worthy, the fundamental perspective of opposition against centralized executive power is valid. The Whigs made use of a key advantage that rested in a strong network of newspapers and merchant class political support.Their opposition to the imperium style of governance by Andrew Jackson was a direct affront to the growth in the aggrandizement of presidential tenets. No matter what weight you place on their various positions or social policies, it is difficult to deny that the expansion of presidential dominance has been the norm since the demise of this loyal opposition party.
The constitutional safeguard against high crimes and misdemeanors is to remove officials from office. Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. Note Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Now the practicality or the lack of political will to exercise this constitutional mechanism for relief is a fair concern, especially when the crony Senate club of careerist criminals failed to execute their duty by removing William Jefferson Clinton. The fact that the entire two party election process is a false choice fraud is undeniable. Yet, the procedure exists to remove goons from their organized crime syndicates, more commonly known as official federal agencies.
Congressional representatives dispatched from office for their own acts of corruption often occur. Usually those targeted for removal are threats to the establishment order. The skilled outlaws get to become committee chairs. However, when did you last hear of a bureaucratic appointee getting a jail sentence for their high crimes and misdemeanors?
Both George W. Bush deserved and Barack H. Obama needs to be removed from office for a litany of offenses so numerous that the list goes on to infinity. A compliant mainstream media routinely covers up for the political structure of reprehensible executive administrations.
Here lies the linkage in defense of a free and independent press with the remote possibility of pushing elected Congressional representatives to conduct impeachment procedures against the likes of Eric Holder and Lois Lerner. Only a condition of citizen critical mass of justifiable outrage can affect the national pulse to hit the ceiling.
The dissemination of pervasive anger against governmental corruption needs the widest voice available. The public, seldom noted for their courage or involvement, must enter the dirty slime of the political cesspool.
Federal judges and the Supreme Courts are integral co-conspirator protectors of the subverted system. The law is too important to allow lawyers to practice their profession of esquire privilege over the sovereign citizenry. Congress is all that is left to strip the illegitimate despotism from the presidential potentates, who practice a version of divine right kingship.
The legislature is the last refuge of representative sentiment. Yet, the suicidal amnesty immigration betrayal by the Senate confirms, once again, the inbred elitism of globalist stooges. Obviously, the intent of extending indiscriminate citizenship is to eliminate the lingering remains of the Whig Party disdain for the imperial presidency.
Impeachment should become the full time agenda of Congress. The ultimate goal of eliminating entire agencies starts with passing legislation that defunds budgets and remove from positions of authority, the minions of international collectivism. Autocratic presidents and senate traitors that pass treasonous treaties, foster the advancement of the New World Order.
The House is the people’s body and is the final hope of constitutional legitimacy. Purging the bureaucratic offenders and shyster counsel from public office is imperative if Thomas Jefferson’s vision for America is to be resurrected, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Congress needs to make the presidency accountable to the nation.
Inquest to take place shortly concerning death of scientist…
Holmes is one of several Porton Down scientists who have died under questionable circumstances. The death in November 2001 of Vladimir Pasechnik was ruled to be a stroke, although co workers stated that Pasechnik was in good health. Vladimir Pasechnik was a Russian defector who first alerted the West to the extensive clandestine research into biological warfare taking place within the Soviet Union.
His death was, oddly, belatedly announced by Dr. Christopher Davis of Virginia. Davis was the member of British intelligence who de-briefed Dr. Pasechnik at the time of his defection. The announcement of Pasechnik’s death did not come in England until a month after he died. Interestingly, Pasechnik was also debriefed by a Dr. David Kelly, head of microbiology at Porton Down, which is England’s top secret chemical, biological and nuclear laboratory.
Dr. David Kelly, whose body was also found in the woods, had been invited to take the position of chief microbiologist at Porton Down in 1986. Later, he worked extensively with Dr. Wouter Basson of South Africa’s clandestine Project Coast. Basson was known to be working on a “black’s only” bioweapon. When South Africa’s apartheid government fell, Basson was subsequently charged with an assortment of crimes, including murder. He skated on all the charges and is now a successful cardiologist in Durbanville, South Africa.
Another scientist who collaborated with Kelly and Basson, Dr. Larry Ford of Irvine, California died in 2001 of a shotgun blast that was ruled a suicide. Police found guns, ammunition and explosives when they dug up his yard. Cholera, botulinum, salmonella and typhoid were also located in vials in his refrigerator. All told, 266 bottles and vials of lethal toxins were found in the Ford home.
The CIA declined to comment on Ford’s intelligence connections.
Dr. Kelly’s death in 2004—in the same woods that were to later claim the body of Dr. Richard Holmes—sent shock waves through the clandestine scientific community. Kelly reportedly died after slashing his wrists and consuming a cocktail of painkillers . His death was subsequently ruled a suicide.
However, according to the mainstream publication the Daily Mail, thirteen respected doctors declared that it was medically impossible for Dr. Kelly to have died in this manner. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200004/Did-MI5-kill-Dr-David-Kelly-Another-crazy-conspiracy-theory-amid-claims-wrote-tell-book-vanished-death.html
Andrew Gilligan, a reporter for BBC, claimed that Kelly had recently given him and other reporters information that proved the government had exaggerated the Iraqi danger in its “dossier” in order to justify the war against Iraq. Kelly was also reported to be writing a “tell-all” book.
The Daily Mail also reported that “at 8am, half an hour before Dr. Kelly’s body was discovered under the tree, three officers in dark suits from MI5′s Technical Assessment Unit were at his house. The computers and the hard-disk containing the 40,000 words of the explosive book were carried away. They have never been seen since. “
In 2004, Kelly’s replacement as the chief scientist for chemical and biological defence at the Ministry of Defence’s laboratory at Porton Down, Dr. Paul Norman, died when the plane he was piloting crashed near Devon.
The Wiltshire coroner’s office stated this week that Dr. Holmes’ coroner’s inquest will take place shortly. Dr. Holmes had recently left his employment at Porton Down before his fateful walk in the woods. It is unclear why he resigned. Within a month after leaving Porton Down, he was dead.
Why Drones, foreign and domestic, became necessary to establishment politicians and corporations…
In the autumn of 2002 America was rushing toward the War in Iraq, orchestrated by the Bush Administration, especially Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Though most people did not yet realize this, Bill Clinton already had a very cooperative relationship with the Bush family. He and Hillary were poised to become seriously monied working for the same folks who had taken over the Republican Party in the 1960s.
You don’t need to be a Straussian to embrace the strategy.
NeoConservative is the term coined by Irving Kristol, a student of Leo Strauss. The philosophy Strauss originated justifies any act which achieves the desired goal in the pursuit of power. When you understand this is a philosophy which absolutely justifies deceit and abuse of power, and extending control, the corollary becomes clear. Those using Straussianism will, ultimately, take steps to make their control perpetual because, otherwise, they will suffer at the hands of their victims.
Those accepting Straussianism knew they needed to evade exposure.
This explains the enthusiasm of both Bush and Obama for Executive Orders. Although ordinary Americans think in terms of a divide between right and left, this is an illusion. The divide has been carefully created to stymie effective corrective action by the people.
Notice how many of the measures now being put into place were being planned years ago. Homeland Security, the NSA, the militarization of our police and introduction of drones and biometrics, and the CIA and FBI do nothing to increase the security of ordinary Americans – but they are useful for controlling us.
Controlling America, and Americans, was necessary to perpetuating their power and defending them from the consequences of their deceit, beginning before the War in Iraq.
The Highly Disordered in Power
If you watched the documentary on Dick Cheney, now playing broadly on television, titled, “The World According To Dick Cheney,” you find a chilling insight into the mind of someone who is focused on centralizing and increasing the power of the presidency using all available means. Cheney has long been a self-proclaimed adherent of Leo Strauss, along with Don Rumsfeldt and most of the cadre of individuals who came in to power with the Bush Administration.
Cheney, appointed to find a vice-presidential candidate for Bush in 2000, conducted a carefully scripted process which disqualified everyone except himself. Cheney knew he could never be elected president because he lacks the social skills necessary and, if he ran, his questionable health and DUIs, among other issues, would have been exposed to the media and the public.
Always described as a ‘take-charge’ kind of man, Cheney’s entire career is defined by treating politics as war.
Karl Rove had a different agenda. While the Bush family certainly wanted the War in Iraq and had been planning for it since W. was still governor of Texas, Rove wanted a permanent hegemony over politics in America. To accomplish this, he suborned the electoral system of the United States using several different techniques.
Beginning in the late 70′s, he displaced the growing power of women moving toward social justice within the GOP, displacing this with an artificially created presence of politicized Evangelicals, galvanized and trained for political action.
For this enterprise, he enlisted Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, long time associates through Young Republicans.
Rove spread out a network of political operatives, both within the GOP and elsewhere, in think tanks and the media. John Fund, formerly on the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, is an example of this, as is Matt Drudge. This allowed Rove to plant disinformation at will in any part of the country. Both Rove and Cheney’s cell numbers are on Fund’s speed dial.
Rove also centralized the state Republican Parties, displacing community-based candidates in the primaries with chosen and well funded Rove functionaries. This was taking place in California in the early 90s. Many of these targeted candidates were social justice-oriented women.
To lock down his control, Rove ensured the move to electronic voting, which he could control remotely. This worked for him fairly smoothly from 2000 until last year.
The next level of strategy was the media. The media has been controlled through the CIA since the time of the Kennedy assassination, according to Peter Janney, in his book Mary’s Mosaic. In exhaustive detail, the book lays out how a free media was silenced through control of those who owned the media.
Planting operatives in the media, who supplied CIA approved spin and planted stories, became standard operating procedure. Continuing this practice, Rove assigned the job of deflecting questions on the visible problems with electoral fraud to John Fund, placed at the Wall Street Journal by Robert Novak in 1984.
John Fund was essential to deflecting attention from the issue of the ongoing electoral fraud because Fund wrote, “Stealing Elections,” which muddied the water on this issue. While he was only one of many operatives, he was not easily replaced because of his position at the Wall Street Journal. Therefore, political capital was expended on his protection in 2002.
People forget scandals and willingly accept explanations, given a modicum of manufactured proof. Victims and witnesses can be silenced so they can no longer defend themselves. Major events distract public attention, which, properly managed, may never be renewed.
In early September, 2001 John Connolly of Vanity Fair published, “Sex, Lies, and the Tape.” Included was ataped conversation, known as the WeaselSearch Tape, between Fund and His girl friend, Morgan Pillsbury.
As you listen to this tape, made in September, 1999, and read the accompanying article you realize both Fund and his girl friend, my disordered daughter, Morgan, lie, and are not to be trusted.
I am the individual the two are discussing. Later, in 2001 – early 2002, Fund battered and nearly killed Morgan.
All of the individuals discussed here were involved in the evolution of events surrounding this tape.
By winter 2002 Rove and associates probably believed they had managed to defuse the problem Fund’s battery of Morgan had caused. But the situation devolved because of computer hacking, leaking Saddam’s willingness to leave later the same year.
The Oncoming War in Iraq – Autumn 2002
Cheney and Rove, both Straussians, had common ground in the drive for perpetual war in 2001 – 2002, had both adopted the ideas of Strauss. Their joint commitment to a campaign of deceit was natural to each and relatively easy to carry out through 2004 since the full array of government tools were available to them and they were united.
The rush to war started with the lies you likely remember about weapons of mass destruction. In the autumn of 2002 a juggernaut for war was launched and moving.
Then, in November, an unanticipated problem raised its head.
In November of 2002 Saddam let it be known he would gladly leave, if he was paid. An email correspondence began. Max Blumenthal, for his father, Sidney Blumenthal, and through him to the Clintons, persuaded Saddam Bush was only blustering and would not invade. They did not know, at the time, someone else was reading their emails.
For me, this part of the story started when Morgan called me from the basement where she was hiding in Georgia and asked, “Mother, is Uday something like E-Bay?“ Morgan did not pay much attention to things not directly effecting her.
The John Fund Scandal, briefly, was followed by some, then dropped in the wake of 9/11. But for myself, it was a continuing problem.
Fund, an old friend of mine, had begun a sexual relationship with my daughter, lied to her, tried to dump her, and suffered the consequences anyone in the family could have told him were in the cards.
Morgan is a psychopath. So is Fund. The reason the Weaselsearch tape was made was because I had found, to my grief, her word was not to be trusted. She made it to persuade me she had told the truth and changed her ways. This last was a lie, but she hooked me into believing her for a while.
The previous spring, 2002, I was still renting an apartment for Morgan in NY, and she had not yet fled NY, which she was forced to do because of the attempt to kill her by John Fund, aided, she was told, by Rove and Cheney.
About that time, she had put a keylogger on Sidney Blumenthal’s computer. Blumenthal was, if you remember, Clinton’s assistant and senior adviser.
This, I told her, was illegal. But she said it was payback because Blumenthal had had her computer hacked and stolen information from her about John Fund and others, to be used in his book, “The Clinton Wars.”
Someone with power had gotten to the court in New York. Ignoring the evidence, and witnesses, they had sidelined the case, though we were told Morgenthau personally held the file on his desk. If Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney in Manhattan, what could we do? Thwarted, Morgan returned the favor and put a keylogger on Blumenthal’s computer.
Morgan is disordered. Ten years ago the problem of sociopathy and psychopathy were not nearly as widely understood as today by any of us. The disordered create chaos. But earlier the chaos Morgan created was at least localized to her family and friends. When she broadened her associations to the NeoCons, who are also disordered, things got worse.
In 2012 I realized psychopaths never change. I also understood much more about what had been going on with attempts to bring about the War in Iraq and why Fund, Rove, and Cheney felt endangered by Morgan’s hacking.The Bush Administration knew Morgan knew about their efforts to keep Saddam in Iraq so the war could go forward.
What Morgan Found in Sid’s Email Box
Morgan had been getting emails between Sidney and his son, Max, which were forwards from someone named Uday. She read them to me and sent one on, with the identifying origin. This email went on to a friend who could tell us where the email to Max had originated. The word came back it had originated in the Saudi Arabian Emirates, and very well could have come from Baghdad.
The emails urged Saddam to stay in Iraq, saying Bush would not invade as Saddam expressed his willingness to be paid to leave.
Morgan kept reading these messages and the husband of the couple, with whom she was staying, also saw these emails. When Morgan decided to put a keylogger on Uday’s computer this was accomplished by using the subject line, “Women without Veils,” which was the husband, Eric’s, idea. It worked. Reading the emails continued, and included emails directly from Uday. I did not ask for copies and none were sent to me.
I contacted a friend’s husband who worked at the CIA and left the matter in Morgan’s hands. She told me the FBI had gotten in touch with her and asked her to continue to monitor the correspondence, also following Uday with the new keylogger she had installed in the computer in Baghdad.
When the bunker-buster hit Saddam’s headquarters Morgan reported seeing the ‘ping’ move from Baghdad to Virginia. She was not contacted again. But they knew we knew.
There had been no release of information regarding the activities of Blumenthal and the Clintons in holding Saddam in Iraq in the media. The War in Iraq was building. I had a horrible, sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Now we know Saddam had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If Saddam had been paid off to leave there would have been no war. But, of course, trillions of dollars would have been lost to the war contractors and bankers.
As you dig, the lies only get worse. If you read John Perkins’, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” it is clear you see what people will do to other human beings for money. Not a pretty picture.
Drones, militarized police, along with biometrics for tracking individuals, and control through the GPS component, now standard in our cell phones, are each essential to suppressing the ability of Americans to resist and fight back. These are paid for by Americans, but produced by private contractors. Today, contractors have become an essential part of government.
The world of government contractors is murky and hard to follow. We know little enough about politicians, nothing about contractors, who are unelected and nearly invisible. We need to know, we need transparency. Along with knowing who they are, we need to hold them accountable. Each of us is liable for doing harm to others. This is also true of contractors.
For the purpose of understanding one drone contractor we have chosen Green Hills Software, Inc., a silver member of the Association for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems International.
They have been involved in this story since, at least, 2002. Read my previous article, “How a Transparent World Protects us,” for details on Green Hills and their Management Team.
The company provides encryption and guidance, without which drones would not work. Green Hills is the best possible example of an errant contractor. Their relationship with John Fund began in 1999. It is likely Green Hills knew Saddam Hussein had offered to leave Iraq.
Green Hills assisted in silencing myself and Morgan with curious haste, beginning with sending the uncertified deposition, given by Morgan in 2001, to John Fund. When this took place their profits were skyrocketed with government contracts. The War in Iraq was starting.
The world would be very different today if the FED had simply printed up a billion dollars and sent it to Saddam. He would have retired and troubled us no more. Better yet, we could have looked for the real perpetrators of 9/11 and held them accountable.
What did not happen is history. Now, we understand far more clearly what the problems are we face. Out of control contractors are only one of these, but one which must be solved.
Green Hills contact information, and evidence, has been provided to attorneys in England and Pakistan who are now filing law suits. Since Green Hills is international collecting should not be a problem.
A small step, but useful in setting a new direction for America.
In II Samuel 19 there is the story about an often-overlooked man by the name of Barzillai. He was a Gileadite who helped save King David’s life. The Scripture says of him: “He was a very great man.” Today, I’m going to tell you about a very great man. In fact, I’m going to talk about several great men.
I am reminded of these men, because tomorrow I have the distinct honor of speaking at a giant freedom rally on Lexington Green, Massachusetts, on the occasion of the 238th anniversary of the famous Battle of Lexington and Concord. If you live within driving distance, please come and join us. Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, will also be speaking at this event. I believe the rally begins at 2pm local time.
In truth, April 19, 1775, should be regarded as important a date to Americans as July 4, 1776. It’s a shame that we don’t celebrate it as enthusiastically as we do Independence Day. It’s even more shameful that many Americans don’t even remember what happened on this day back in 1775. For the record, historians call this day, “Patriot’s Day.” More specifically, it was the day that the shot heard ’round the world was fired. It was the day America’s War for Independence began.
Being warned of approaching British troops by Dr. Joseph Warren and Paul Revere, Pastor Jonas Clark and his male congregants of the Church of Lexington (numbering 60-70) were the ones that stood with their muskets in front of the Crown’s troops (numbering over 800), who were on orders to seize a cache of arms which were stored at Concord and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock (who were known to be in the area, and who had actually taken refuge in Pastor Clark’s home).
According to eyewitnesses, the king’s troops opened fire on the militiamen without warning, immediately killing eight of Pastor Clark’s parishioners. In self defense, the Minutemen returned fire. These were the first shots of the Revolutionary War. This took place on Lexington Green, which was located directly beside the church-house where those men worshipped each Sunday. Adams and Hancock were not apprehended. A few of Pastor Clark’s men led them to safety as their Christian brothers were preparing to stand in front of the British troops. Sam Adams and John Hancock owed their lives to Pastor Clark and his brave Minutemen.
According to Pastor Clark, these are the names of the eight men who died on Lexington Green as the sun rose on April 19, 1775: Robert Munroe, Jonas Parker, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jr., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, and John Brown, all of Lexington, and one Mr. Porter of Woburn.
However, by the time the British troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, hundreds of colonists had amassed a defense of the bridge. A horrific battle took place, and the British troops were routed and soon retreated back to Boston. America’s War for Independence had begun!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two elements of American history are lost to the vast majority of historians today: 1) it was the attempted gun confiscation and seizure of two patriot leaders by British troops that ignited America’s War for Independence; and, 2) it was a local church pastor and his male congregants that mostly comprised the Minutemen who fired the shots that started our great Revolution.
With that thought in mind, I want to devote today’s column to honoring the brave preachers of Colonial America–these “children of the Pilgrims,” as one colonial pastor’s descendent put it.
It really wasn’t that long ago. However, with the way America’s clergymen act today, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and Jonas Clark never existed. But they did exist; and without them, this country we call the United States of America would not exist.
Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed, although one historian referred to Clark as a Trinitarian and Calvinist. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who participated in America’s War for Independence, and in the case of Jonas Clark, actually ignited it.
James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story.
During the Springfield (New Jersey) engagement, the Colonial militia ran out of wadding for their muskets. Quickly, Caldwell mounted his horse and galloped to the Presbyterian church, and returning with an armload of hymnals, threw them to the ground, and hollered, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts!” He was referring to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts, of course.
The British hated Caldwell so much, they murdered his wife, Hannah, in her own home, as she sat with her children on her bed. Later, a fellow American was bribed by the British to assassinate Pastor Caldwell–which is exactly what he did. Americans loyal to the Crown burned both his house and church. No less than three cities and two public schools in the State of New Jersey bear his name.
John Peter Muhlenberg
John Peter Muhlenberg was pastor of a Lutheran church in Woodstock, Virginia, when hostilities erupted between Great Britain and the American colonies. When news of Bunker Hill reached Virginia, Muhlenberg preached a sermon from Ecclesiastes 3 to his congregation. He reminded his parishioners that there was a time to preach and a time to fight. He said that, for him, the time to preach was past and it was time to fight. He then threw off his vestments and stood before his congregants in the uniform of a Virginia colonel.
Muhlenberg was later promoted to brigadier-general in the Continental Army, and then to major general. He participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He went on to serve in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.
Joab Houghton was in the Hopewell (New Jersey) Baptist Meeting House at worship when he received the first information regarding the battles at Lexington and Concord. His great-grandson gives the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:
“[M]ounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first, words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston; then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly, ‘Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?’ And every man in that audience stepped out of line, and answered, ‘I!’ There was not a coward or a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-House that day.” (Cathcart, William. Baptists and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: S.A. George, 1876, rev. 1976. Print.)
As I said at the beginning of this column, Jonas Clark was pastor of the Church of Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the day that British troops marched on Concord with orders to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and to seize a cache of firearms. It was Pastor Clark’s male congregants who were the first ones to face-off against the British troops as they marched through Lexington. When you hear the story of the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington, remember those Minutemen were mostly Pastor Jonas Clark and the men of his congregation.
On the One Year Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, Clark preached a sermon based upon his eyewitness testimony of the event. He called his sermon, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.” His sermon has been republished by Nordskog Publishing under the title, “The Battle of Lexington, A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative, Jonas Clark, Pastor, Church of Lexington.”
Order the book containing Clark’s sermon at:
Of course, these four brave preachers were not the only ones to participate in America’s fight for independence. There were Episcopalian ministers such as Dr. Samuel Provost of New York, Dr. John Croes of New Jersey, and Robert Smith of South Carolina. Presbyterian ministers such as Adam Boyd of North Carolina and James Armstrong of Maryland, along with many others, also took part.
Numerous Baptist preachers participated in America’s War for Independence, so many that at the conclusion of the war, President George Washington wrote a personal letter to the Baptist people saying, “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the preserving promoters of our glorious Revolution.” It also explains how Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist congregation and say, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (McDaniel, George White. The People Called Baptists. The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1918. Print.)
And although not every pastor was able to actively participate in our fight for independence, because so many pastors throughout colonial America preached the principles of liberty and independence from their pulpits, the Crown created a moniker for them: The Black Regiment (referring to the long, black robes that so many colonial clergymen wore in the pulpit). Without question, the courageous preaching and example of colonial America’s patriot-pastors provided the colonists with the inspiration and resolve to resist the tyranny of the Crown and win America’s freedom and independence.
I invite readers to visit my Black Regiment web page to learn more about my attempt to resurrect America’s Black-Robed Regiment. Go to:
Readers should know, too, that a brand new book co-authored by me and my constitutional attorney son, Tim, entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” will be released in just a few days. This book examines the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and proves conclusively that nowhere does God expect His people to surrender their arms in the face of any would-be tyrant. With hundreds of references, we show from both Natural and Revealed Law that the right of self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, is a God-ordained right and responsibility. This book is sure to be a blockbuster. To order the book, go to:
This is the fighting heritage of America’s pastors and preachers. So, what has happened? What has happened to that fighting spirit that once existed, almost universally, throughout America’s Christian denominations? How have preachers become so timid, so shy, and so cowardly that they will stand apathetic and mute as America faces the destruction of its liberties? Where are the preachers to explain, expound, and extrapolate the principles of liberty from Holy Writ?
I am absolutely convinced that one of the biggest reasons America is in the sad condition that it is in today is because the sermons Americans frequently hear from modern pulpits deal mostly with prosperity theology, entertainment evangelism, feelgoodism, emotionalism, and Aren’t-I-Wonderful ear tickling! One man recently wrote and told me that his ears had been tickled so much in church that he had calluses on them.
This milquetoast preaching, along with a totally false “obey-the-government-no-
Tim and I also wrote a book entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” This book examines Romans 13, and the rest of Scripture, and shows that nowhere does God demand that His people yield to wicked and unjust government. To order this book, to go:
As we celebrate Patriot’s Day tomorrow, please remember Jonas Clark (along with James Caldwell, John Peter Muhlenberg, Joab Houghton, and the other brave pastors of colonial America). “He was a very great man.”
What more time-honored practice in the long history of state sponsored servitude than the institutionalization of prisoners? Incarceration for offenses against government laws is a cornerstone for power and survivability of any regime. Prisons may have been hellholes over the centuries, but seldom has the internment of convicted lawbreakers been a growth industry for private profit. It almost makes one wonder exactly who are the crooks. While most hard-pressed citizens want a safe and secure society, few ever give even a passing thought to the insatiable corporatist criminalization of the criminal justice system. Just how many Americans agree with the proposition, if you did the crime, you need to serve the time.
All loyal law and order proponents can take pride in the one area where the imperium of government discipline still ranks first among nations. A Global Research article - The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery? – points out some staggering facts.
“There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world’s prison population, but only 5% of the world’s people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.”
Just imagine the hidden solution to the high unemployment economy is staring in our faces without even a hint of public reaction. The ultimate entrepreneurial partnership allows for corporate security firms to house government dissenters or rebellious non-conformers.
“Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America(CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a private prison administrator in Virginia, “the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum number of prisoners.” The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for “good behavior,” but for any infraction, they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA.”
The dramatic increases in prison population are not from violent convicts or rapists and killers. The majority of offense categories are property, drug and especially public-order related. The goal of social rehabilitation is a quaint concept of another era. The pretense of reclamation from a conviction of prosecutorial discretion is a standard that few DA’s or judges ever consider. Sentencing guidelines are based upon retribution and punishment, in order to keep the prisons filled with a growing number of new inmates. The supposition is that if you are charged with a crime, the suspect will plea bargain or the jury will follow the directions of the government and convict.
For 2011, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate. Such a record implies a culture of criminalization or a hard road for an innocent suspect to navigate. No wonder, the private company screws are such staunch supporters of the transgression and disorder society.
The video, Private prisons - the most profitable real estate in the US? – provides a distressing analysis of the consequences of incentivizing revenue return motivated companies as the jailer overseers.
From the report Prison Labor and Crime in the U.S. - Industry, Privatization, Inmate Facts and Stats – Prison Industries and Inmate Labor – section:
“Many companies are now directly involved in some form of profiting off of incarceration or the labor of inmates. Since 1980 when there was only one prison industry operating as a privatized entity, there are now thirty eight states and at least five county jails with privatized prison industry productions or factory operations. Together state and federal factories now number over three hundred nationwide with between six hundred thousand and one million inmates working in some form of manufacturing or services. Hundreds of companies using inmate labor for manufacturing, services and other duties are now partnered with these operations. This is done under the federal Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) under 18 USC 1761(c).
Clearly companies, businesses and corporations have become heavily invested in, and dependent upon incarceration for cheap labor and profit. In 2009 total sales of prisoner made products totaled $2.4 billion. Some research places that figure as high as $5 billion and this is in addition to the “prison industry” figure of $34 billion used previously.”
Another RT video details the Prison labor booms in US as low-cost inmates bring billions. Is society really safer from the dramatic increase in the prison population, or is this method of crowding a growing herd of cheap labor simply a strategy to enrich politically connected companies?
As the rapid implosion of the economy accelerates, the prospect of even greater numbers of government prosecutions will surely increase. How many Jean Valjean’s are there in Les Misérables penal confines baking bread?
Now if you are sympathy challenged and are as hard as the rocks that need to be broken, why is the political class virtually exempt from accountability. Remember the once popular bumper sticker; “I’ll Buckle Up When Ted Bundy Does”. Well, no compassion for a serial killer is certainly understandable and proper.
However, where is the justice when a professional bankster felon like Jon Corzine skates after his crimes in the MF Global theft? The rules for ex Goldman Sacks predators allows for financing publicly traded private jail companies, but are exempt of ever working on the assembly line making license plates. What is next: a hedge fund totally devoted to the management of a privatized infrastructure of FEMA camps.
Michael Snyder writes in The Economic Collapse article, Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make.
“If you can believe it, three of the largest private prison companies have spent approximately $45,000,000 combined on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade.
Just look at what has happened to the U.S. prison population over the past several decades. Prior to 1980, there were virtually no private prisons in the United States. But since that time, we have seen the overall prison population and the private prison population absolutely explode.
For example, between 1990 and 2009 the number of Americans in private prisons grew by about 1600 percent.
Overall, the U.S. prison population more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2007.”
Hard core criminals that violate civic community standards and endanger public safety should pay a price for their transgressions. Conversely, political prisoners that challenge the crony corruption within the governmental hierarchy do not deserve a sentence in a sweatshop.
With the abandonment of a police ethic that was dedicated to keeping the peace for an apparatus of law enforcement for arbitrary and dishonest statutes, which only serve the privileged elites; our society is sentenced to a death penalty. Slavery was eliminated a century ago, right? Thus far, that message has not filtered down to the penal plantation. An inmate deserves the solitude of solitary confinement.
The most effective private prison is the one that interns the personal guilt of wicked deeds. If public officials would act upon the moral judgments of their conscience, the perversion within the laws that they pass, adjudicate or administer, would exempt or reduce the unequal application of legitimate legislation, now deemed as criminal acts.
Human nature being what it is; evil acts are instinctive within malevolent souls. Accepting a corrosive punitive system, that enriches private companies, is a horrible departure that prison is a valid tool that protects society. The most dangerous and violent forfeit their social freedom by their predatory actions. However, the sheer numbers of confined prisoners does not justify a structure that exploits a captured population for forced labor.
Do we really need to criminalize society as the price to coexist in the era of Guantanamo justice? America once strived to maintain a balance among competing factions. Today there are only Statists that absolve government transgressions as acceptable and the dissenters that are now in the sights for retribution and eventual arrest. The criminalization of citizens for capricious infractions is the sign of a doomed society. When the hacks patrol the halls to enforce proper public behavior, the entire country becomes a prison.
When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.
Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.
It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.
I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.
The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.
In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”
Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.
Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2ndAmendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:
“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys…”
Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?
Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.
Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).
Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.
The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…
What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:
What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”
How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down):
And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:
These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.
After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:
“First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.
The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident…”
To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that theNew York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.
“…Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.”
The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.
The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.
“Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”
Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?
Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?
The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.
By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.
Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households.
A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study. The hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again…
Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:
“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.”
He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck study, and that the argument of “too few participants” was unfounded:
“I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminologyentitled ‘Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment’, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.
Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.
If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.
The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
The military has transformed warfare into a deadly computer game with drone weapons. Media programs like Weaponology or Future Weapons on the Military Channel provide detailed examples of the lethalness of autonomous technology. The use of drones as the preferred method of carnage is well established. Seldom do moral questions come into the discussions of eliminating enemies of the state. The rules of engagement vested in international law and the Geneva Convention, either ignored or rewritten for high-tech 21st Century combat, becomes the foundational tactic to maintain the killing force of the grand empire.
The video, Remote Control War, is an informative summary of the capabilities and uses of a drone air force. After viewing the range of aftermaths from GPS targeting, ponder the role of perpetual DARPA conflict. The distress from invented terrorism is used against the American public as a tool to incrementally relinquish basic rights and individual liberties. Matt K. Lewis offers up this assessment in an item published by This Week, Obama, drones, and the blissful ignorance of Americans.
“And here’s the ugly truth: Obama is giving us what we want . . .
Americans, it turns out, don’t really have the stomach for the unseemly business of taking prisoners, extracting information from prisoners, and then (maybe) going through the emotional, time consuming, and costly business of a trial.
American citizens want someone who will make the big, bad world disappear. Problems only exist if we have to confront them. Obama has made warfare more convenient for us — and less emotionally taxing.”
Beware of the unseen predators over foreign lands for the blowback is the real source of the instability and a root cause of hatred for American hegemony. What you are witnessing is the imbalance between Legislature and the Presidency. The war powers responsibility of Congress, long surrendered to the imperial commander and chief of killing incorporated is a national tragedy.
In another TW article, Peter Weber raises an essential question, Will Congress curb Obama’s drone strikes?, provides a mainstream assessment that seems lacking within the federal government.
“Since at least the 9/11 attacks, Congress has been less than confrontational with the White House over presidential powers to conduct war and anti-terrorism operations, to the dismay of civil libertarians. So we had President George W. Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretaps retroactively green-lighted by Congress, torture only officially nixed by a change in presidents, and a big ramping-up of lethal drones being used to kill terrorism suspects under President Obama. But Obama’s decision to kill at least two Americans working for al Qaeda in Yemen in 2011, and the legal justification that emerged in a leaked white paper (read below) this week, has caused a big, unusual outcry from both the Left and Right.”
The esteemed New York Times, part of the Obama fawning media, continues to carry water for the administration in Congress to See Memo Backing Drone Attacks on Americans.
“This week, NBC News obtained an unclassified, shorter “white paper”that detailed some of the legal analysis about killing a citizen and was apparently derived from the classified Awlaki memorandum. The paper said the United States could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible.”
One might be accused of NYT bashing if you dare point out that their reporting resembles a briefing session from White House press secretary, Jay Carney. The use of warbots on home soil is a short step from spreading terminal sanctions of homeland security.
“Both the progressive American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Rutherford Institute cheer legislative efforts to place strict limits on unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. And, prodded by privacy groups, state lawmakers nationwide-Republicans and Democrats alike-have launched an all-out offensive against the unmanned aerial vehicles.
The prospect of cheap, small, portable flying video surveillance machines threatens to eradicate existing practical limits on aerial monitoring and allow for pervasive surveillance, police fishing expeditions and abusive use of these tools in way that could eliminate the privacy Americans have traditionally enjoyed in their movements and activities,” the bill’s author, Sen. Robyn Driscoll, a Democrat from Billings, testified.”
The ACLU presents a list of provisions that the Civil Liberties organization advocates. Also Read the ACLU’s full report on domestic drones. “Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:
USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.”
Relying on Rutherford Institute Model Resolution, Charlottesville Becomes First U.S. City to Limit Police Drones; TRI Calls on Rest of Country to Follow Suit.
“In a 3-2 vote, members of the Charlottesville City Council adopted a resolution drafted by The Rutherford Institute which urges the Virginia General Assembly to prevent police agencies from utilizing drones outfitted with anti-personnel devices such as tasers and tear gas and prohibit the government from using data recorded via police spy drones in criminal prosecutions. In so doing, Charlottesville has become the first city in the country to limit the use of police spy drones, providing momentum and inspiration for other cities across the country to follow suit.
The passage of the resolution, which also places a two-year moratorium on the use of drones within city limits, coincides with a Department of Justice memo leaked to the media which outlines the Obama administration’s rationale for assassinating U.S. citizens via drone strike. With at least 30,000 drones expected to occupy U.S. airspace by 2020, John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has called on government officials at the local, state, and federal level to do their part to safeguard Americans against the use of drones by police. Rutherford Institute attorneys have drafted and made available to the public language that can be adopted at all levels of government in order to address concerns being raised about the threats posed by drones to citizens’ privacy.”
When was the last time that a civil liberty issue developed an alliance of purpose to oppose the despotism of the totalitarian murder regime?
The Judge Napolitano YouTube: Killing Americans with Drones is Nowhere Justifiable Under The Constitution, goes unheeded as the country sinks into a zombie trance of public acquiescence. The compliant society is rooted in denial and disbelief.Even so, some of the more perceptive state legislatures are waking up to the danger of domestic drone operations. Texas “Anti Drone” Laws Would be Toughest in USA, and “prohibit federal law enforcement or federal officials from flying drones over Texas to spy on random citizens. Only individuals who are suspected with reasonable cause could be the target of drone surveillance, and only with a warrant issued by a judge of an open and public court.”
Politico details, “Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has not decided whether he will sign a bill barring state and local agencies from using drones for two years — the first legislation of its kind in the country that passed through the state’s General Assembly Tuesday with bipartisan support.”
The National Defense Authorization Act is the latest unconstitutional measure that targets domestic citizens for punitive punishment. Due process, now reduced to “Due or Die” is the harbinger of the use of domestic drone capitulation. What will it take to awaken submissive citizens that the capability of foreign deployed drones easily can be weaponized for local operations?
The Obama administration has demonstrated an eagerness to trump up a bogus domestic terrorist threat that requires a surrender of our Bill of Rights. Reaper drones are a much greater peril than just a violation of privacy. A technology that is rapidly expanding and designed to militarize the police state into a killing field of reputed rebellious Americans – violates true national security.
“Making warfare more convenient and less emotionally taxing” is the direct opposite of the horror of battle. When a false flag surgical strike targets your location and your person, it will not be an episode in a computer simulation.
The mainstream media covered the inauguration of Barack Obama with breathless anticipation on Monday, but should we really be celebrating another four years of Obama? The truth is that the first four years of Obama were an absolute train wreck for the U.S. economy. Over the past four years, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has fallen, median household income has declined by more than $4000, poverty in the U.S. has absolutely exploded and our national debt has ballooned to ridiculous proportions. Of course all of the blame for the nightmarish performance of the economy should not go to Obama alone. Certainly much of what we are experiencing today is the direct result of decades of very foolish decisions by Congress and previous presidential administrations. And of course the Federal Reserve has more influence over the economy than anyone else does. But Barack Obama steadfastly refuses to criticize anything that the Federal Reserve has done and he even nominated Ben Bernanke for another term as Fed Chairman despite his horrific track record of failure, so at a minimum Barack Obama must be considered to be complicit in the Fed’s very foolish policies. Despite what the Obama administration tells us, the U.S. economy has been in decline for a very long time, and that decline has accelerated in many ways over the past four years. Just consider the statistics that I have compiled below. The following are 37 statistics which show how four years of Obama have wrecked the U.S. economy…
1. During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day.
3. According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
4. The number of Americans receiving money directly from the federal government each month has grown from 94 million in the year 2000 tomore than 128 million today.
5. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either “poor” or “low income” at this point.
6. The unemployment rate in the United States is exactly where it was (7.8 percent) when Barack Obama first entered the White House in January 2009.
8. During the first four years of Obama, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” soared by an astounding 8,332,000. That far exceeds any previous four year total.
9. During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.
10. The Obama years have been absolutely devastating for small businesses in America. According to economist Tim Kane, the following is how the number of startup jobs per 1000 Americans breaks down by presidential administration…
Bush Sr.: 11.3
Bush Jr.: 10.8
11. Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.
12. The economy is not producing nearly enough jobs for the hordes of young people now entering the workforce. Approximately 53 percentof all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed in 2011.
13. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created since the end of the recession have been low paying jobs.
14. Back in 2007, about 28 percent of all working families were considered to be among “the working poor”. Today, that number is up to 32 percent even though our politicians tell us that the economy is supposedly recovering.
15. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, only 24.6 percent of all of the jobs in the United States are “good jobs” at this point.
16. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.
17. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losinghalf a million jobs to China every single year.
18. The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.
19. According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percentof all global economic activity in 2001. That number declined steadily over the course of the next decade and was only at 21.6 percent in 2011.
20. The United States actually has plenty of oil and we should not have to import oil from the Middle East. We need to drill for more oil, but Obama has been very hesitant to do that. Under Bill Clinton, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 58 percent. Under George W. Bush, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 116 percent. Under Barack Obama, the number of drilling permits approved actuallydecreased by 36 percent.
21. When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Today, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is$3.26.
22. Under Barack Obama, the United States has lost more than 300,000 education jobs.
24. Families that have a head of household under the age of 30 now have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
25. More than three times as many new homes were sold in the United States in 2005 as were sold in 2012.
26. Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.
27. Health insurance costs have risen by 29 percent since Barack Obama became president.
28. Today, 77 percent of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time.
29. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
30. The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.
31. The Obama administration has been spending money on some of the most insane things imaginable. For example, in 2011 the Obama administration spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.
32. U.S. taxpayers spend more than 20 times as much on the Obamas as British taxpayers spend on the royal family.
33. The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every single year under Barack Obama.
35. During Obama’s first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.
36. As I wrote about yesterday, when you break it down the amount of new debt accumulated by the U.S. government during Obama’s first term comes to approximately $50,521 for every single household in the United States. Are you ready to contribute your share?
37. If you started paying off just the new debt that the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.
But despite all of these numbers, the mainstream media and the left just continue to shower Barack Obama with worship and praise. Newsweek recently heralded Obama’s second term as “The Second Coming“, and at Obama’s pre-inauguration church service Reverand Ronald Braxton openly compared Obama to Moses…
At Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, Braxton reportedly crafted his speech around Obama’s personal political slogan: “Forward!”
Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: “forward is the only option … The people couldn’t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.” Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles – like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, “Mr. President, stand on the rock,” citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.
But it wasn’t enough to compare Obama with the founder of Judaism and the prophet of the Bible. Braxton added that Obama’s opponents were like the Biblical enemies of Moses, and that Obama would have to enter the battle because “sometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.”
So what do you think the next four years of Obama will bring?
Source: The Economic Collapse
We all know what can happen when kids and guns mix. And today I will tell you some stories about that very thing. The kids’ names were Kendra and Alyssa, and then there was the 11-year-old boy whose name we just don’t know. What we do know is that they lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. We know that guns were in their homes — and that something horrible befell them.
Last year, 12-year-old Oklahoman Kendra St. Clair was home alone, unsupervised. At some point she accessed her mother’s handgun — a .40-caliber Glock. Then Kendra pulled the trigger.
And that bullet tore into flesh.
You probably know the rest of the story.
Or maybe not.
The bullet tore into the flesh of a 32-year-old home invader, causing him to flee. Kendra was left scared and crying, but unscathed.
The story of Albuquerque 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez turned out differently. Three teenage burglars broke into her home, but they fled after she merely grabbed her mother’s rifle. No one was hurt, but the criminals were caught.
But sometimes innocents do get shot. Such was the case with an 11-year-old Palmview boy in 2010. At home with his mother, he got his hands on a .22-caliber rifle. And after the two armed and masked illegal aliens who had broken into their home shot through their bedroom door after the mother refused to open it, hitting the boy in the hip, he returned fire. He struck one of the criminals in the neck, causing them both to flee. They were apprehended when the wounded miscreant showed up at a local hospital.
These were children who lived in places called BryanCounty, Albuquerque, and Palmview. Thank God, they still live in those places. And that’s what can happen when kids and guns mix.
If you’re unacquainted with my work, you perhaps didn’t expect this piece to take the turn it did. You perhaps didn’t hear these stories; the mainstream media doesn’t report such things much. But now that you have, ponder this question: do you wish these children hadn’t had access to firearms? Because they won’t if the gun-control crowd gets its way.
Of course, the above real-life stories are just that: anecdotes. Some will say they’re rare and not statistically significant. And I suppose they are rare; most people will never face such evil and have the ability to thwart it. Yet they’re not nearly as rare as a Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech: your chance of dying in a school shooting approximates that of being struck by lightning. In contrast, FloridaStateUniversity criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans each year use guns for self-defense and that 400,000 of them say they would have been killed if they hadn’t been armed. That’s 400,000 a year.
Do I believe they all would have been murdered? No. People have a penchant for the dramatic, and fear and stress can corrupt judgment. But even if only one half of one percent of them are correct, that’s 2000 innocent lives saved with guns every year. This is approximately 76 times as many as were killed at Sandy Hook and considerably more than were lost in all American gun massacres during the last 40 years. And if five percent of them are right, it amounts to 20,000 innocent lives saved — far more than the number murdered with guns in America every year.
Ah, “that big ‘if,’” some will say. Woulda’, coulda’, maybe, perhaps, I suppose. Of course, we could also mention that those 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses represent rapes, robberies, and assaults thwarted — usually without firing a shot. And that’s part of the problem. It’s a headline when a gun goes off; it can be head to the next story when a criminal is merely scared off.
As for hypotheticals, they aren’t as emotionally compelling as a school shooting, where you see victims’ pictures, grieving relatives, and emergency vehicles dominating your TV. Perhaps it would be different if we, as in a science-fiction movie, could somehow get a glimpse into alternate gun-free futures, where the world’s Kendras and Alyssas and millions of other good citizens couldn’t defend themselves. Maybe if the citizenry saw in living color how many of these people, while now safe, would have been left brutalized, killed, and lying in a pool of their own blood, we could compete for emotional impact. Thus we should remember, to use a play on a Frederic Bastiat saying, that a bad policy-maker observes only what can be seen; a good policy-maker observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen. Dead innocents killed with guns can be seen; the innocents who would be killed were it not for guns must be foreseen.
Yet even what can be seen, such as the stories I opened with, won’t usually be because they don’t fit the anti-gun mainstream-media narrative. Instead we hear about how 13 children a day are killed with firearms, with no mention that this “‘statistic’ includes ‘children’ up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source [most of these incidents involve teenage gang members shooting each other],” writes Guy Smith at Gun Facts. Or we’re asked questions such as “Why does anyone need an AR-15?” Perhaps we should ask the then 15-year-old Houston boy who used that very weapon to defend himself and his younger sister against two burglars in 2010.
Here’s what you might learn: being a light gun (seven pounds) with little recoil, it’s an ideal firearm for youngsters and women. A lady I knew once fired a shouldered shotgun when she was a girl, and the kick knocked her on her backside; an AR won’t do this. This is partially because its high-tech mechanism absorbs much of the recoil energy, but also because it is not nearly as powerful as even many hunting rifles.
How can this be? Isn’t this “scary black gun” a “killing machine,” as Piers Morgan put it? As explained and illustrated in this video, this class of weapons is designed to wound a 170-lb. man, while a high-powered hunting rifle’s purpose is to kill a 300 to 800-lb. deer or moose. In fact, in some states and countries it is illegal to hunt large game with an AR-caliber round (.223) for fear that its relative ineffectiveness will leave a wounded and suffering animal wandering the forest. As to this, note that the AR-wielding 15-year-old Houston boy shot one of the intruders at least 3 times — and the man lived. It might have been a different story had the teen used a 30.06 deer rifle, and a very different one with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.
So do kids and guns mix? Well, kids and their guns have sometimes been mixing it up with criminals — and coming out on top. But neither kids nor anyone else mixes well with guns when ending up on the wrong end of one. This happened at Sandy Hook. It happened in Aurora, Co. It happens during many other garden-variety crimes. And it could conceivably happen scores of thousands of times more every year. The only way to find out precisely how many more times is to disarm the American people.
My mother always used to say “Life is the best teacher.” Sure is — and sometimes it smacks you right upside the head. It appears this has happened with Barack Obama supporters now witnessing their paychecks shrink in the wake of tax increases. And they’re none too happy. In fact, they’re shocked.
Shocked, I tell you.
Providing examples of this liberal anger and angst, Joseph Curl writes:
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Well, pal, I’ll explain it. George Bush has found a way to control Obama’s mind, sort of like a zombie. I mean, you don’t think the great orator’s mouth makes all the mistakes it does (off Teleprompter) because it’s actually controlled by the great orator’s brain now, do you?
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
How can you pay off loans with smaller paychecks, Virginia? Ask Nancy; she sounds like a real intellectual.
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
I could explain why, Dave — very clearly. But I don’t use the kind of language you do. So I’ll just say, my good man, that you’re what they now call a “low-information voter.” And you and your comrades have given us a low-information president.
Curl mentions that more is yet to come, when other Obamabots get their first paychecks on the 15th. I’ll add that even this is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till they feel the full bite of ObamaCare and whatever else is coming down the pike.
Well, as the old Dutch proverb goes, “We grow too soon old and too late smart.”
Then again, sometimes the age shows up without the smarts.
Curl tells us that many liberal posters are blaming these tax hikes on Bush. This is no surprise. I’m telling you, some of these people’s epitaph will read, “It’s Bush’s fault.”
If you said brutally attack your girlfriend, cracking her skull, your name just might be Patrick Moran.
And if you’ve skated on both counts, your father just might be Jim Moran, Democrat congressman from Virginia.
Patrick Moran was the field director for his father’s campaign before the election — that is, until a sting operation caught him on video coaching an undercover reporter on how to commit vote fraud. He sounded as if he’d already achieved semi-pro status, too. But since undermining our republic is obviously right up there with jaywalking, he didn’t have to spend any quality time basket-weaving with one of his father’s most reliable constituencies. And now we learn that Moran’s relational conflict resolution is morally congruent with his philosophy on electoral success. Writes Washington’s City Paper:
Moran and his girlfriend were fighting outside 14th Street bar The Getaway [in Columbia Heights, DC] around 1:23 a.m. on Dec. 1, according to a police report, over Moran talking to another woman at the bar. Suddenly, Moran allegedly slammed his girlfriend’s head into the bar’s metal trash can cage.
After the attack, police described Moran’s girlfriend as “bleeding heavily from her nose and also observed that her nose and right eye were extremely swollen.” One of the ambulance technicians who transported her to Howard University Hospital told police that Moran appeared to have broken her nose and given her a skull fracture under her right eye.
Moran subsequently pled guilty to assaulting his girlfriend. This would seem to have been for good reason, as the police report “describes both a Metropolitan Police Department sergeant and an Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration investigator seeing Moran slam his girlfriend’s head into a trash can cage outside the Getaway[,]” writes the City Paper.
But it seems that “Getaway” describes more than just the crime’s location in this tale.
Both Moran and his girlfriend now say that the incident was an “accident,” with the latter blaming it on a “broken high heel.” Well, I am quite sure a heel was involved.
And while Moran was originally charged with felony domestic violence assault, he ultimately got off on simple assault. And the punishment?
So let’s get this straight. According to police, Moran the Younger was observed slamming his girlfriend’s head into a metal object by two law-enforcement officials, an impact that caused a broken nose and fractured skull. And he walks?
It’s nice when daddy has power, money, and influence.
…And, it seems, a warped moral compass.
Note that Moran the Elder (D-VA) said in an official statement that he hoped his son’s and the victim’s “privacy will be respected,” described the situation as “embarrassing” and said that the two were “good kids.”
But “good” clearly has a different meaning in Jim Moran’s (leftist) culture. Just consider his response to his kid’s vote-fraud facilitation: he didn’t say anything about ethics, but simply called it “outright stupidity.” I guess he was disappointed in his son — that the boy got caught. He surely taught the lad better than that.
Speaking of which, the origin of P. Moran’s conflict-resolution skills may be no mystery. As Jenny Erikson at Café Mom tells us, “[I]n 1995, Capitol Hill Police had to pull [Rep. Jim Moran] off California Republican Randy Cunningham on the House floor, and he once told Washingtonian magazine, ‘I like to hit people.’”
Rep. Moran also has a history of making anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic statements, and once, after attending a Mass in which the priest criticized Catholic politicians who ignore Church teaching, approached the priest red-faced and shouted, “You priests don’t know anything about abortion!” (For more of Rep. Moran’s “Morantics,” click here.)
As for Moran the Younger, I guess we have to ignore his latest (alleged) “stupidity” as everyone is now falling in line and saying that there’s nothing to see here; move on. It was just the attack of the killer DC trash-can cage. But I do have to wonder what kind of offer that you can’t refuse was made to the female victim.
Ah, abusing our electoral system and women — true liberal family values. Now all we have to do is see what Patrick Moran will do for the trifecta.
As of November of 2012, a mind-numbing 47.7 million Americans subsist on taxpayer-funded food stamps. One in seven Americans cannot feed himself or herself with a job or work of any kind. What constitutes the irony to this national tragedy? Answer: our U.S. Congress imports 100,000 legal immigrants into the USA with green cards every 30 days.
No matter how much poverty and unemployment blacks, whites and Hispanic Americans suffer– the leaders of this country continually pound more humans into the mix without pause. At the same time, food banks go belly up with bare shelves. Over 13 million American children live in destitute poverty and cannot secure three square meals per day.
While Congress supports our enormous military spending into the trillions of dollars and two 10 year long wars that devour (ed) money—it fails to create jobs and feed our poorest. It fails the fundamental rights of our own citizens to work and eat.
The gross statistics created by our U.S. Congress: (Source:hubpages.com)
#1 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
#3 Right now, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.
#4 It is projected that half of all American children will be on food stamps at least once before they turn 18 years of age.
#5 According to new numbers that were just released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to a new all-time record high of 49.7 million last year.
#6 The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by about 6 million over the past four years.
#7Today, about one out of every four workers in the United States brings home wages that are at or below the federal poverty level.
#8According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate for children living in the United States is about 22 percent.
#9 Overall, approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be either “low income” or impoverished.
#10 In the United States today, close to 100 million Americans are considered to be either “poor” or “near poor”.
#11 One university study estimates that child poverty costs the U.S. economy 500 billion dollars each year.
#12 Households that are led by a single mother have a 31.6 percent poverty rate.
#13 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.
Once you research the numbers, you cannot help but look to your own U.S. Senators and House reps and see failure, duplicity and corruption. No excuses! How could men and women who are supposed to represent American citizens continually leave American citizens in the grips of poverty, joblessness and homelessness?
Some kind of moral, ethical and spiritual wrong grows in the nation’s capitol all the way up to the president. American citizens become its victims.
Do you think there is any chance of it changing and becoming better as that same U.S. Congress adds over 3.1 million immigrants every year on our way to adding 100 million immigrants within the next 38 years?
How many times do you have to hear that going off the financial cliff is a failure of controlling spending as opposed to a lack of revenue? Systemic deficits exist because government is too big, not because taxpayers are not paying their fair share. This assessment is sacrilege to the Democratic Socialists who make up both political parties. The “so called” debate over cutting back the growth in budgetary increases is void of any real substance or focus. The basic reason that the federal government leviathan instills mass hysteria and fear about cutting back on social welfare programs is that the system preaches a false egalitarian and utopia deliverance from reality.
Contrast this dependency viewpoint with the foundations of America First populism. Thomas Jefferson presents the basis for a healthy economy. “Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” The National Center for Constitutional Studies summarizes.
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom – not to restrict or diminish the individual’s right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
¦assure that the ground rules were fair (a fixed standard of weights and measures)
¦encourage initiative and inventiveness (copyright and patent protection laws)
¦provide a system of sound currency with an established value (gold and silver coin)
¦enforce free trade (free from interfering special interests)
¦protect individuals from the harmful acts of others
The big government legacy from the New Deal destroyed the last vestige of a constitutional central government. A recent illustration of the institutional attitude for the entitlement mentality comes out of that shining example of democratic community; namely, Detroit Michigan. FoxDetroit video and report in We voted for you, now bail us out tells it all.
“City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)
“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”
Detroit’s former prosperity and manufacturing dominance rose out of the genius of Henry Ford and the companies that grew out of the auto industry. Now, Detroit teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, looks more like a Beirut war zone landscape than the affluence of Gross Point.
“No city Detroit’s size has ever gone through federal bankruptcy, and analysts say the experience could easily have negative effects statewide, from Michigan’s image to its bond rating.”Public officials like JoAnn Watson typify the poverty victimhood constituency. The Democratic Socialists of America is very clear on their vision for the country.
“Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”
With each passing administration, the federal government exerts more central planning and economic regulations. The middle class is under an unprecedented onslaught from bureaucrats that expand federal dependency programs that the Watson’s of this world demand as claims for quid pro quo votes. The earning class is systematically being impoverished for the benefit of crony capitalists that the Democratic Socialists assail. However, their alternative is to grow central government even larger.
“Bring home the bacon” to satisfy JoAnn Watson just puts a coat of paint on a dilapidated ghetto of a failed benefit and dependency Motown community. Her mindset has greatly contributed to the State laying groundwork for managed bankruptcy for Detroit. A step in the right direction for Michigan is the Right-to-work bills pass in Lansing.
True America First populism recognizes that an all powerful and intrusive federal government destroys not only personal liberty, but drastically diminishes economic viability for producing and working individuals. Without the productivity of legitimate commerce, no ceiling on taxes can generate the funds to raise the underclass out of poverty.
Genuine traditional populism is not progressive. While being anti corporatist, the heritage of honest free enterprise and the merchant economy is defended as the alternative to the democratic socialist corporate/state. Yet the like of Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons condemn Right-Wing Populism in America.
“One of the staples of repressive and right-wing populist ideology has been producerism, a doctrine that champions the so-called producers in society against both “unproductive” elites and subordinate groups defined as lazy or immoral.”
This criticism of producerism is disingenuous because of the implicit bias that progress ideologues have in the superiority of their democratic socialization mission. The inbred Marxist, contaminant much needed reform activism that America First populism offers to those who understand that a real market economy has the best prospects, for the greatest gains, for the most people.
Earning a return on labor, ingenuity and innovation is the essence of noble work. The common enemy of all non-establishment political persuasions is the debt created fake money system under the Federal Reserve. Without an adequate understanding of the impossibility of taxing yourself into wealth, the democratic socialist just sinks deeper into the debt hole of central bankers.
Deficit spending is inevitable, when the U.S. Treasury borrows funds at interest, from the Federal Reserve to create fiat money. Authentic populism must be based upon a limited federal government, with a separation of shared powers, among sovereign states and local jurisdictions.
The anxiety of a federal government meltdown coming on January 1, 2013 should be no surprise for that same Democratic Socialists of America, in What is the fiscal cliff?
“An inflammatory term used by corporate elites to resist paying higher taxes and to allow them to keep offshoring jobs. Rather than prioritizing job creation and economic recovery as the road to long-term fiscal health, these advocates of austerity are using misguided hysteria about the federal debt level to further drive down the living standards of working people, the poor and the elderly. A more accurate term for the “fiscal cliff” would be “fiscal fake-out.”
Apprehension of the corporatist playbook does not necessarily translate into a workable solution, when the DSA advocates more money to feed the government that serves only the globalist elites.
Even the neoconservative flagship, the Weekly Standard feels the need to chime in their counterfeit conservative message in, No ‘Drama’ Obama–Wants to Raise ‘Debt Limit Without Drama or Delay’.
Republicans fighting the debt limit last go around, according to Reuters, is the reason America’s credit was downgraded:
It was the reluctance of congressional Republicans to agree to such an increase in 2011 without deep spending cuts that brought the nation to the brink of default. The result was a historic lowering of the U.S. credit rating and a setback to the recovery from a recession that ended in 2009.
The statutory ceiling on U.S. Treasury borrowing is $16.4 trillion. The nation is expected to hit the legal limit near the year’s end, although it can tap emergency measures to stave off a default and keep the government running into early 2013.
No Virginia, the real reason for the inevitable credit downgrading is that financing budget deficits with devalued dollars demands a drastic rise in interest rates. All sincere citizens must acknowledge that the Obama administration is committed to destroy Jefferson’s vision for a restrictive federal government. Washington’s spending problem is self-evident, but for the democratic socialist, the growth of central governance is paramount.
Barack Hussein Obama quoted in Yahoo Finance demonstrates the arrogance of an out of control dictator.
“If Congress in any way suggests that they’re going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation…I will not play that game,” he said. “Because we’ve got to break that habit before it starts.”
Alas, America First populism exponents recognize the absurdity of surrendering constitutional Congressional control over the federal budget, in favor of an imperial tyrant.
“A person can’t be a real conservative if he rejects the primary populist message. The government is answerable to the people . . . The responsibility of the individual is to become a knowledgeable and a capable citizen. That means that pledges for a free lunch must be rejected as just another swindle dressed in a pretty package. The performance seldom matches the rhetoric and never attains compatibility with basic conservative principles. Our test is clear; if it harms individual liberty, it can’t be conservatism.”
Traditional populism realizes that the national debt must be repudiated because the criminal central bankers, the Jackals of Jekyll Island, have been running a banksters scam on all Americans. The fundamental difference between democratic socialists and America First populists is their standpoint on central government tyranny.
The song, “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” was played in the morning right after the American national anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, and students were forced to stand for all three. While the law currently states that no child can be compelled to stand for any kind of pledge, controversy only arose at CHS after two students and a parent complained about having to stand for the “Black National Anthem” (BNA).
To make matters worse, Clinton Giles, the black principal of CHS who made the requirement, allegedly ridiculed a child for his refusal to stand during the BNA. As the Daily Mail (the link to the original article is no longer valid) wrote:
Kim Bailey is the mother of one student who chose not to stand. She said the song is considered the “African-American National Anthem” and it was disrespectful to make students stand for it.
Her son chose not to stand and was sent to the office several times because of his decision, she said. She also said Giles made statements over the loudspeaker about the situation that “ostracized” her son.
Because of the complaints, Giles had initially eliminated the playing of all three works, the national anthem, the pledge, and the BNA. After discussion with school-system officials, however, he changed the policy yet again. And this is where news reports seem to conflict (which may explain the inactive Daily Mail link). Standing will now be optional, but there is some question as to whether only the pledge and national anthem have been reinstated or the BNA as well. If the latter, it is a further outrage. After all, where is this “black” nation that should have its own national anthem? Aren’t blacks Americans, too?
What Principal Giles did is another example of how, when liberals can’t eliminate tradition altogether, they want to adulterate it through the inclusion of non-traditional elements. This is the phenomenon that can cause long-displayed Nativity Scenes to be buried amidst a plethora of atheistic and other “holiday” displays, with a perversion of the First Amendment used as a pretext.
And as with the water-muddying holiday displays, Giles’ actions diminished what should have been the focus of reverence. You don’t place any song on the same plane as the pledge and national anthem by playing it right on their heels and forcing students to show it equal respect — not in America, anyway.
The only thing I can say in the principal’s defense is that the BNA doesn’t have any overtly racial lyrics and its last verse has some intensely religious content, which means that Giles at least managed to mix traditionalism in with his political correctness. Nonetheless, if he feels compelled to juxtapose another “national anthem” with our own, I’d suggest to him that he may be in the wrong country.
It’s amazing what we’ll stand for nowadays. Not the national anthem or the pledge, but mis-educators such as Clinton Giles. The problem at Capitol High School isn’t first and foremost its choice of music. It’s the school’s choice of leader.
Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation. This is why, aside from the unwritten contract allowing for mutual prevarication, politicians are so reluctant to do it. And not just anyone is a liar. Legend has it that our first president said, “I cannot tell a lie,” but, being only human, G.W. no doubt could and certainly did, at some point. A liar, however, is someone who lives and breathes the lie; someone who specializes in the art of artifice; someone to whom lying is his first recourse, not his last. Such a man is Barack Obama.
In four years, Obama has gone from “change you can believe in” to a man you simply cannot believe. And it’s not just Benghazi-gate, although that’s a good place to start. With the recently revealed emails showing that the White House was told a mere two hours after the attack that it was a terrorist act, no reasonable person can still conclude that the Obama administration was honest in its aftermath. And the claim that the violence was sparked by some anti-Islamic film wasn’t just a lie — it was a liar’s lie.
It was dumb.
It was obvious that it would eventually blow up in the administration’s face and make Benghazi into the scandal it has now become. But such things are only obvious to the intellect; at issue here are instincts.
Of course, since the Obama administration had failed to provide requested security for our Libyan diplomats despite previous attacks on their consulate and the approach of 9/11’s anniversary, the president had a vested political interest in suppressing the truth. This made the Benghazi-gate lie one of callousness and convenience, not malice. But then there is the matter of Hampton University in Virginia.
The speech Obama gave there on June 5, 2007 received a bit of attention recently before being dismissed as “old news.” But perhaps nothing reveals the president’s character better.
Appearing before a mostly black audience and speaking Ebonics-style (despite never having lived in a black community), Obama accused the federal government of showing cruel indifference to the primarily black victims of Hurricane Katrina. The evidence, he claimed, involved something called the Stafford Act, which requires a locality receiving federal disaster relief to provide 10 percent as much money as Washington does. And as Obama worked the crowd, he said:
When 9/11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act. …And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation; we don’t expect you to come up with your own money. Here, here’s the money to rebuild…because you’re part of the American family.’ What’s happening down in New Orleans?! Where’s your dollar?! Where’s your Stafford Act money?! Makes no sense. …Tells me that somehow the [black] people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much.
This is Racial Grievance 101, the main course offering of a community organizer (agitator?). And it’s no small matter, as stoking the fires of racial and ethnic hatred has cost scores of millions of lives throughout history. Yet, isn’t there something to be said about raising awareness of injustice? Well, now for the rest of the story.
Barely two weeks before Obama gave the Hampton U.speech, the US Senate had in fact waived the Stafford Act for New Orleans. Moreover, that city ended up receiving more aid than Florida and NYC combined. But that’s not all. As Thomas Sowell wrote:
Unlike Jeremiah Wright’s church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record forMay 24, 2007shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against — repeat, AGAINST — the legislation which included the waiver.
Absolutely mind boggling. Obama votes against the bill that includes the waiver designed to help people about whom he purports to care. Yet the bill passes despite his resistance. Obama nonetheless appears before a black audience not two weeks later and claims that the waiver for aid was never granted. Even more damnably, he clearly implies that this is due to white “racism.”
Then there is the most ironic chapter in the Obama Annals of Artifice. It’s common to dismiss those who question the president’s origins as cranks and con men, but, as American Thinker pointed out, Obama was “the original birther.”
This refers to the revelation in May of this year that Obama’s former literary agency, Acton & Dystel, printed a promotional booklet in 1991 that touted Obama as having been “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Note that this was a polished volume created at great expense by a professional outfit, and there is only one source from which its agents could have gotten the notion that Obama was born in Kenya: Obama himself.
Thus, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the president has lied about his birthplace — either when claiming more recently that he was born in Hawaii or, far more likely, when claiming in 1991 that he wasn’t. And it’s easy to understand why he would’ve claimed the latter. By the ‘90s, having exotic origins could truly enhance your cachet and hence your marketability. And this little twist on truth was small potatoes for a guy willing to disgorge lies designed to foment racial unrest.
This brings us to the presidential debates. It’s fine to fact-check, to reveal that Obama really did lie about the decline in oil production on federal lands, tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, middle-class tax cuts, Egyptians’ new found love for America, and a Status of Forces agreement. But at some point it’s a bit like trying to itemize the libations of a guy who has crashed both your cars, squanders the family funds on booze, staggers home in the wee hours, and is a continual embarrassment around the neighbors. You no longer need to prove that certain individual drinks were imbibed; it’s painfully clear that the individual is a drinker.
While hard-core partisans will remain in denial on our drunk-on-power president, good people, who generally have a desire to be polite, should realize that politeness becomes vice when it obscures truth. And if we don’t wish to descend into dishonesty ourselves — the intellectual variety — we need to acknowledge that the truth about Barack Obama is that he simply cannot tell it.