Saturday, January 31, 2009

H.R. 197 - Contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!

Courtesy of Cap'n Bob

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!

NCCWH.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

Reprinted from the NRA-ILA.


Bailout For Dummies - Primer 1 thru 3

Bailout Primer #1

Bailout Primer #2

Bailout Primer #3

To view the entire series from the beginning to end click here


Movie Of The Week, Movie Of the Month, Movie Of the Year...

The Power Of Prayer Amplified

While the BBC is not particularly known to support any form of religious expression I find this article somewhat hopeful for I strongly believe in the power of prayer. Prayer, of course, has to be sincere and not simply wishful thinking. You'll never win the lottery by praying unless of course you plan on spending every penny on those less fortunate than you. You cannot make any deals with God. Your prayers will be heard either directed to God or through some intermediary such as your favorite saint (whether canonized or not) and now with the help of technology your prayers can be amplified... "For wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20)." And you can be assured that over the Internet you will have more than two... Now whether or not your prayers are answered that's a whole new story; but you will never know if you don't ask through prayer - Norman E. Hooben

The online way to pray for others (from the BBC)
By Jane Lyons
New York

You can do lots of things online these days: socialising, networking, shopping. But praying? Yes, that too.

On a rainy morning in New York City, volunteers get together to work on The website is based on a simple premise: people submit their requests for prayers, and others pray for them - an act known as intercessory prayer.

The postings run the gamut of human suffering. Some are concerned for sick relatives.

"Please pray for Jeff. He is in an intensive care unit with serious problems with his liver, pancreas, kidneys and bowels. Please pray that his body will pull through," reads one.

Others need help with a faltering relationship: "Please pray for the healing and mending of my love relationship. We are meant to be together and right now we need strength, positive energy, and love."

Rebecca Phillips
You can fit it into your own time and schedule, it makes prayer much more a part of your daily life.
Rebecca Phillips

The co-founder of, Rodger Desai, says the internet is a useful medium for his group.

While he does not believe it will replace personal interaction, he thinks it could bolster and support it.

He says the internet has distinct advantages for people who may have problems they are reluctant to share face-to-face, offering them the chance to think them through with other people's help online first.

Rebecca Phillips looks after the social networking aspect of She says her site is similar to that of Facebook, only with a religious theme.

It has around 100,000 active members and its prayer requests page receives as many as 20 new requests each day.

She thinks that in addition to the internet's anonymity, its flexibility is a big advantage.

"You can fit it into your own time and schedule, you're not limited to weekly scheduled meetings - it makes prayer much more a part of your daily life," she says.

Traditional prayer

One such weekly meeting is held at St Patrick's Cathedral in New York.

Altar at St. Patrick's cathdral
St Patrick's cathedral is a haven of tranquility in midtown Manhattan

Each Wednesday lunchtime, a group of women meets to pray in the traditional way: in person, at church. They have been doing so for more than 30 years.

People who want to submit a prayer request with them have to come to St Patrick's and personally write it in the request book.

Some group members are enthusiastic about the online prayer sites. Barbara Howard believes it is the way of the future. "Everything will be online, so I think it's a good thing - and also inevitable," she says.

Others, like Midori Shimamoto, are not so sure. She says that being there in person is more touching: "The spirit is more intense and immediate. The internet just seems so cold."

Carol Vanadio believes in keeping the old traditions intact. She thinks that the online sites should be supplementary. "There really is nothing like being here in person," she says.

Scientific studies into intercessory prayer have not been able to prove its effectiveness.

Dr Mitchel Krucoff is Professor of Medicine and Cardiology at Duke University in North Carolina. He carried out one such study in 2003. The results showed that patients who had been prayed for fared no better than those who had not.

He questions the degree to which intercessory prayer benefits people, but says that there are plenty of testimonials around for those who choose to believe in them.

"Frankly, you don't need data to tell you that if your mother is in the operating theatre, it's ok to pray for her. You don't need a doctor's prescription," he says.

'Cosmic vending machine'

Dr Richard Sloan is Professor of Behavioural Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center and author of the book "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

He thinks comfort may be the only thing the sites provide and challenges those who run them to show him evidence to the contrary.

He also objects to the way he says the sites treat religious devotion: "It's like some kind of cosmic vending machine. You put the prayers in, and out comes some outcome that you want. It's nonsense."

However, people like Paige Wheeler, who started her site "as a vehicle to help others," will not be deterred.

What both she and the traditionalists at St Patrick's Cathedral share is a strong belief that what they do makes a very real difference to people's lives.

"If I didn't feel that it had an effect, then I wouldn't have done this. I truly believe in the power of prayer," she says.

Can YOU think of an attention grabbing headline? We need one here!

Now none of you who have followed any of my warnings cannot deny that I have warned you of these very same issues...let me summarize a few and then read the latest news coming down the pike...

1932 - ...calls for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks" including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics

1933 - "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

"Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere."

1934 -- The Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey is published. Bailey is an occultist, whose works are channeled from a spirit guide, the Tibetan Master [demon spirit] Djwahl Kuhl. Bailey uses the phrase "points of light" in connection with a "New Group of World Servers" and claims that 1934 marks the beginning of "the organizing of the men and women... group work of a new order... [with] progress defined by service*... the world of the Brotherhood... the Forces of Light... [and] out of the spoliation of all existing culture and civilization, the new world order must be built."

*Smells like Obama to me!

1939 - "The manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind,* are aspects of one and the same process." He proposes that this be accomplished through "universal law" and propaganda (or education)."

*Obama's manifest destiny!

*This is your current bailout/financial crisis along with the proposed universal health care.

And if you go back and read all my stuff you will note that all of it is unfolding right before your eyes! I'm certain the following is right out of the pages of Margaret Sanger... By the way are you dysgenic? If you are, Obama has a place waiting for you...

2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012
... and by then it should be complete!

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps in U. S.

“National emergency centers” on military bases to house American citizens

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S. 270109top

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

Read the new legislation in full below.


National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (Introduced in House)

HR 645 IH


1st Session

H. R. 645
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.


January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.


(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.


(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–

(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;

(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;

(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;

(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;

(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and

(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.

(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:

(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.

(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.

(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.

(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.

(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.

(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.

(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.

(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.

(g) Reports-

(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;

(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;

(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;

(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and

(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).

(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);

(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.


This Act does not affect–

(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or

(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.


There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.


In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:

(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.

(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.

(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

Research related articles:

  1. More Disturbing Legislation Emanating From Congress
  2. Rangel To Push Universal Military Draft Legislation Once More
  3. FEMA sources confirm coming martial law
  4. The failure of the NIST WTC 7 report to address concerns raised in Appendix C of the 2002 FEMA Building Performance Study
  5. Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
  6. Hurricane Gustav: National Emergency Environment Sets the Stage for the McCain Election Campaign
  7. Treasury Sends to Congress Legislation to Buy Troubled Assets
  8. NIST Concludes “Fire” Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had “low probability” of Knocking Down Tower
  9. Military Examines Role In Domestic Defense
  10. Torture Camps Minutes From Olympic Sites
  11. U.S. troops may be deployed in Arizona, Southwest U.S.
  12. List of Labor Camps Released to International Journalists in China

Caught On Camera

The picture to the left was captured by the Google roaming camera that maps the streets around the country so that you can view such places as the drive by camera captures the moment. This gentleman apparently purchased a gun at a nearby gun shop...
You can find this guy on 7th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota by going to Google Maps and typing in
701 Main Street • Rapid City, SD in the search bar.
When the map comes up drag the little person icon and place the icon on the "A" marker. Now all you have to do is follow Main Street to 7th Street and take a left onto 7th Street and there he is...caught on camera!

Friday, January 30, 2009

Beware Of CAIR

From Investors Business Daily

Beware Of CAIR

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: You'd think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it's having to do major damage control.

Read More: Global War On Terror

Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed "moderate" voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a "Dear Colleague" letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to "think twice" about meeting with CAIR officials.

"The FBI has cut ties with them," the letter says. "There are indications" CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.

The letter, signed by five Republicans, including the head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, is attached to an article by a homeland-security news service. It reports that the FBI has been canceling outreach events across the country with CAIR, following a recent directive from headquarters to cut ties with the group.

It's a major policy shift at the FBI, which has appeased the notoriously litigious CAIR since 9/11. The group aggressively attacks critics with threats of boycotts and discrimination lawsuits.

The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.

It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship.

According to the federal lawsuit, CAIR directed an unlicensed lawyer to handle their immigration cases. The phony lawyer shook them down for their life savings and bungled their paperwork. When the victims said they would go to the media, the suit charges, CAIR's board threatened to sue them and forced them to sign releases.

Such aggressive tactics are typical of CAIR. The group has threatened CEOs who don't kowtow to its demands to Islamize the workplace and airlines trying to protect passengers from terrorism. It's bullied, as well, scores of critics on TV and talk radio, even getting some hosts fired. Thankfully, the threats are no longer working.

Very important related stories....

Read this! Useful Idiots

And this! "We, my friends, are in deep brown stuff."

And this! Our FBI and CIA have been infiltrated by Muslim...


No silence

In addition to communicating with the local Air Traffic Control facility, all aircraft in the Persian Gulf AOR are required to give the Iranian Air Defense Radar (military) a ten minute 'heads up' if they will be transiting Iranian airspace.

This is a common procedure for commercial aircraft and involves giving them your call sign, transponder code, type aircraft, and points of origin and destination.

I just flew with a guy who overheard this conversation on the VHF Guard (emergency) frequency 121.5 MHz while flying from
Europe to Dubai. It's too good not to pass along.

The conversation went something like this...

"Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.'

Air Defense Radar: 'You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!'

Air Defense Radar: (no response .. total silence)

Smarter than a 5th grader...would you believe, smarter than Al Gore!


Once upon a TIME, facts were not sugarcoated ...

Once upon a time, was pro-American...
Best line (in the story below) , "if a soldier believes he can win -- and knows others have faith in his ability to win -- he usually will win.
Bold face emphasis mine. - Norm
W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

A Journalist's Responsibility to Our Troops

Imagine for a moment: America is at war. The enemy is in full retreat. U.S. forces are on the enemy’s heels. But poor weather; extended friendly supply-lines; and campaign-weary troops slow the American pursuit to a temporary halt. Fresh albeit inexperienced troops are brought forward. Combat veterans are moved to the rear for some much needed R&R.

All at once, the enemy launches a massive counterattack, striking deep in supposedly secure areas. Baffled American commanders are struggling to keep their forward-most units from disintegrating; green kids are literally breaking and running. Combat veterans are rushing forward to try and stem the enemy surge.

That’s exactly what happened 64 years ago this week in what may well be considered one of the greatest intelligence failures and resulting mass-losses of life in American military history: The Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 16, 1944 to Jan. 28, 1945) between the Allies (mostly American and British) and German forces -- which we won, by the way. But not before suffering some 19,000-plus American soldiers killed of 81,000 total U.S. casualties.
But what makes that battle different than even a far less costly setback our forces might suffer today in Iraq, Afghanistan, or who knows where is the way in which the Battle of the Bulge was reported and ultimately perceived by the public.

For instance, in several Time magazine pieces of the period, facts were not sugarcoated -- the situation was indeed dire and the magazine said so -- but the reporting was far more balanced in terms of what the casualty figures reflected and what the attacks, counter attacks, and counter-counter attacks might actually lead to. Covert political agendas played no role in the reporting, but it was obvious the mainstream media supported its troops. And if there was hope in the midst of hell, the correspondents found and reported it.

According to Time (Dec. 25, 1944): “[The Germans] struck with more weight and fury than they had mustered at any time since their ill-fated attempt to break the Allied line at Mortain, in Normandy. … Some Germans were so inflamed with savagery by the switch from retreat to attack that they murdered U.S. prisoners and wounded.”

The same article discussed the terrible cost in lives, the Allies having been “surprised and caught off balance,” the “disconcerting” fact that the Germans were willing and able to martial its forces for such a fierce counteroffensive at that stage of the war, and the reality that the Rhine might be “much harder to reach than the Allies originally expected.” But in a ray of pro-American optimism, the magazine also surmised the German counterattack might actually “simplify, and perhaps even hasten, Allied victory in the west.”

One week later (Jan. 1, 1945), Time reported: “In General Eisenhower's favor was the fact the enemy was now out in the open -- not in the fortifications, river lines and prepared defenses of the Westwall.” On Jan. 22 it was reported: “the Allied command team was intact and operating in harmony … The team had work to do. It had been thrown for a big loss and the way to the enemy's goal was long and hard,” and “… U.S. troops took the blow, and shoved forward again.”

Regarding air operations over the Bulge and beyond, Time reported (also on the 22nd): “Some 4,000 Allied bombers and fighter escorts, profiting by the weather break to attack oil plants deep in Germany, raised a swarm of Luftwaffe interceptors. At least 232 German fighters were downed, while the first count of Allied losses showed only 45 planes missing.”

Notice the word “only.” Not to suggest that the crews in those planes had no value -- they did, to be sure -- but to lend substantive perspective as regards the friendly-enemy win-loss ratio in the air.

Make no mistake, the Battle of the Bulge was a terrible miscalculation on the part of theater commanders and their intelligence chiefs, and nearly 20,000 Americans died in a five-week period as a result. But in the end, the battle was a decisive victory for the Allies. And the broader war was ultimately won thanks in no small measure to solid, balanced reporting, a huge measure of optimism and faith in the capabilities of our soldiers, and always being able to see and report the light within the darkness.

Our success going forward as we prosecute the war on terror is also heavily dependent upon how we view and expound on the light within the darkness. War by its very nature is dark. Irregular war, which is largely the kind of conflict our war on terror is, is even darker. Consequently, it is the responsibility of those of us who report or provide commentary and analysis to always look for the light.

Fact is, if a soldier believes he can win -- and knows others have faith in his ability to win -- he usually will win. That’s why he won at the Bulge.

Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at


Thursday, January 29, 2009

If history is a guide...Obama will fail...

From the best college in America...Hillsdale

Do We Need a New New Deal?

Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
Charles F. Kline Chair in History and Management, Hillsdale College
Author, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 9, 2009, in Washington, D.C., at a seminar sponsored by Hillsdale's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

THE NEW Deal has probably been the greatest political force in America during the last 100 years, and Franklin D. Roosevelt has probably been the most influential president during this time. In our current economic crisis—which some have compared with the Great Depression—many critics are calling for more federal programs and a "New New Deal." There are three reasons we do not need a New New Deal from President Obama in 2009.

First, the federal programs in FDR's New Deal did not lower unemployment. Sure, the Works Progress Administration built roads, the Tennessee Valley Authority built dams, and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted trees. But every dollar that went to creating a federal job had to come from taxpayers, who, by sending their cash to Washington, lost the chance to buy hamburgers, movie tickets, or clothes and create new jobs for restaurants, theaters, and tailors.

What's worse, some New Deal programs had terrible unintended consequences. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, for example, overhauled agriculture by paying farmers not to produce on part of their land. After farmers took the federal dollars, the U.S. developed shortages of the very crops taxpayers were paying farmers not to produce. By 1935, for example, the U.S. was importing almost 35 million bushels of corn, 13 million bushels of wheat, and 36 million pounds of cotton. Simultaneously, we had an army of bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture to inspect farms (and even to do aerial photography) to ensure farmers were not growing the crops we were importing into the country.

Second, the taxes to pay for the New Deal became astronomical. In 1935, Roosevelt decided to raise the marginal tax rate on top incomes to 79 percent. Later he raised it to 90 percent. These confiscatory rates discouraged entrepreneurs from investing, which prolonged the Great Depression.

Henry Morgenthau, FDR's loyal Secretary of the Treasury, was frustrated at the persistence of double-digit unemployment throughout the 1930s. In May 1939, with unemployment at 20 percent, he exploded at the failed New Deal programs. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau noted. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

Third, the New Deal divided and politicized the country in tragic ways. Those who lobbied most effectively won subsidies and bailouts even if their cause was weak. Others, who had greater needs, received nothing. Walter Waters, who led a march of veterans on Washington, lobbied successfully for a special bonus for veterans, whether they had been in battle or not. When asked why veterans—instead of longshoremen or teachers—should receive a special bonus of taxpayer dollars, he said, "I noticed, too, that the highly organized lobbies in Washington for special industries were producing results: loans were being granted to their special interests. . . . Personal lobbying paid, regardless of the justice or injustice of their demand."

Thus, as money became available, those with effective political lobbies won the subsidies and others, who sometimes had more just causes and greater need, received little or nothing. In the case of the veterans, in 1936 they won a $2 billion federal bonus—a sum exceeding six percent of the entire national debt at the time. Teachers, by contrast, were less effective lobbyists and won almost no federal subsidies. Silver miners, led by Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, won a silver subsidy that paid almost $300,000 a day each day for 14 years, but coal miners were left out.

In another example, under Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, Illinois lobbied effectively and won $55,443,721 under the first federal welfare grant while Massachusetts received zero federal dollars. Without federal money for welfare needs, Massachusetts valiantly raised its own funds to secure what Illinois extracted from Washington. The Boston Civic Symphony repeatedly gave concerts to benefit the jobless. City officials and teachers raised money and took pay cuts. Massachusetts Governor Joseph Ely believed that no state should receive federal aid and that private charity was the best charity; that federal relief ruined both taxpayers and those in need. "Whatever the justification for relief," Ely said, "the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by an administration." Ely added that "millions of men and women . . . have come to believe almost that there is no hope for them except upon a government payroll."

Federal dollars always become political dollars, and the Democrats moved to use federal money to gain votes at election time. In Pennsylvania, Joseph Guffey, the successful Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 1934, ran a campaign ad that said, "Compare this $297,942,173 contributed by Pennsylvania to the U.S. U.S. Treasury with the cash and credit of $678,074,195 contributed to Pennsylvania by the Roosevelt Democratic administration." Vote Democrat, Guffey and others proclaimed, and the federal faucet will keep running. James Doherty, a New Hampshire Democrat, said, "It is my personal belief that to the victor belong the spoils and that Democrats should be holding most of these [WPA] positions so that we might strengthen our fences for the 1940 election." One WPA director in New Jersey—a corrupt but candid man—answered his office phone, "Democratic Headquarters."

If history is a guide, we have every reason to believe that if President Obama institutes a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be costly, will be politicized, and will fail.

American Idol Viewers Look Here! too x-box players! - You missed this in school today!

And let's not forget the biggest reason they're doing this...
Coming to your local government owned bank soon...
Reminder # 9,999,999,999 (or at least it seems that way*)
You will lose purchasing power when they issue you your Monopoly...
aah, I mean Amero money...

Oh, before I forget...

If you don't know how to tell when the dollar collapses...
Go back to Glenn's chart in the video above...
When Glenn runs out of space on his chart, the dollar would have already collapsed!
It's like a deck of cards, you can only stack them so high when they all come tumbling down!

Hey, sombody got to tell ya! Or else how would you know...

*Warning #9,999,999,998 was reported just two days ago here.

The Future Of The Democratic Party...the future is here

From Pat Dollard

If the article below is an indicator of which way our country is is headed then we are alread doomed as One Nation Under God. - Norman E. Hooben

Anti-Christian Hate Crime By “College Democrats” At George Washington University: Political Group Steals Crucifixes, Defaces Them With Penises, Condoms - Crucified Christ Mocked With “Pwned” And “LOL” Below His Feet - Warning: Graphic PhotosJanuary 28th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard

“Apparently to the College Democrats, making fun of Christianity, and specifically a memorial to aborted unborn children is humor. To me, it is flagrant, disrespectful and downright disgusting. The fact that these crosses remained displayed in the College Democrats’ office for over 24 hours just adds to the sheer lack of respect they have for Christians on campus.”

- College Republican source, identity withheld for his protection pending investigation

This is a Pat exclusive.

Back in October, The Washington Times reported on allegations of an ominous and potentially dangerous atmosphere of hostility and intolerance for campus Conservatives, free speech, and apparently now, Christianity, by the George Washington University chapter of the national College Democrats organization. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“College conservatives say the excitement of a historic presidential election which could send the first black American to the White House has become clouded by an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility on campus.

“People on campus who say they’re the most tolerant, they simply do not walk the walk,” said Brand Kroeger, chairman of the George Washington University College Republicans and head of the D.C. Federation of College Republicans.

Mr. Kroeger said he has been flooded with calls from students who feel they cannot express their views in favor of Republicans for fear of being shouted down….

GW College Democrats President Cory Struble was accused of sanctioning harassment of Republican and conservative students with comments he made at the beginning of the semester WRGW Radio.

According to an audio file provided by Mr. Struble, he said, “We seek to marginalize them as much as possible. You remember YAF last year put an ad in the paper saying how marginalized they felt [at GW]. Well, this year we want to make sure that GW is an even more uncomfortable environment for Republicans and conservatives…”

Today’s story is breaking and developing. Here are the initial details as revealed to me by two confidential sources within the College Republicans. I have no official statement or comment yet from the organization.

The College Republicans were in possession of a number of crucifixes used in a University-sanctioned Right To Life display. When the display was taken down, they were stored in the College Repulicans’ side of their shared but divided office space with the College Democrats. When the last College Republican members left the offices this last Friday, January 23, the crucifixes were safely stored on their side of the suite.

This Monday afternoon, January 27, when the first College Republicans to re-enter the offices did so, they discovered some of the horrifically desecrated crucifixes, stolen from the private property confines of their storage containers, and proudly displayed on the College Democrats’ bulletin board, and other areas, including a bowl, laid out as if they were candy for any member of the public who visited the office to take home and enjoy. One crucifix featured the College Democrats’ version of Christ: a large penis with an actual condom pulled over the top, in lieu of His crown of thorns.

GW College Democrats feel Jesus is someone who needs to be conquered, and his suffering on the cross is to be laughed at. The top caption is “Pwned”, internet slang for “owned” or “defeated”. At his crucified feet is LOL - internet slang for “Laugh Out Loud”

More were discovered and retrieved on Tuesday.

Shockingly, according to the College Democrats’ work schedule, Executive Board members of the organization were on duty in the offices before the College Republicans’ arrival. It would appear that the Executive Board members either perpetrated the hate crime, or did nothing to stop it, including at least removing the assaulted sacred symbols, even if the crime had been perpetrated by junior members of the organization without their knowledge.

The crucifixes have been retrieved and delicately handled in order to preserve their evidentiary integrity for investigation by the appropriate authorities.

“The College Democrats, for whatever reason have been unable to contain themselves this year…earlier in the year they spoke of wanting to wipe conservatism from the campus, later defaced posters of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and now frequently fail to show courtesy to the organization in the wake of the election. Their latest move is by far the most egregious and outrageous offense. While we doubt these acts were perpetrated by the College Democrats executive board themselves, it was left on their wall for over an entire day, where on average, there anywhere between 3 to 5 College Democrat officers in the office throughout the day…I believe it was put up on the wall and showed off.”

- College Republican source, identity withheld for his protection pending investigation

I have the fullest confidence that the university administration, university police and any law enforcement agencies with jurisidiction, who clearly must become involved, will guarantee the fair and equal application of all relevant laws of theft, vandalism and hate crime, treating the assault on these religious objects precisely as they would if they were Korans, Menorahs, etc.


The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act

Originally introduced as separate legislation by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), this measure was enacted into law as Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The provision directed the United States Sentencing Commission to provide a sentencing enhancement of “not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes.” The provision defined a hate crime as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.”

The Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534)

Enacted in 1990, the HCSA requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which “manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings.

Police officials have come to appreciate the law enforcement and community benefits of tracking hate crime and responding to it in a priority fashion.


Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Report Cards Are In - Obama fails miserably!

This Message Brought To You By

Barack Obama promised "change we can believe in," a new "hope" and "transparency in government" in the days leading up to his inauguration. However, his first week in office has been mired by a series of missteps and failures. The following report card by the "Our Country PAC" highlights a week in office that reveals Obama hasn't changed at all from the liberal he was in the U.S. Senate and Illinois State Senate.

We've included citation links to support each of the claims made here. So be sure to SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FRIENDS - CLICK HERE.

At a time of staggering deficits that require fiscal responsibility from the President and Congress, Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House & Senate are trying to outdo one another in spending more of your tax dollars.

Obama's currently pushing for a $1 TRILLION spending plan that is heavy on big government programs with very little tax relief.

Before he even took office, Obama pressed then-President Bush to request the second $350 billion in federal bailout money. This is despite the fact that the first installment of bailout funds failed to loosen up credit markets as anticipated. Instead, many banks kept the money to pad their own balance sheets, and proceeded to cut credit limits on their customer's bank credit cards.

Obama has placed a desire to "be liked" and to appease America's enemies ahead of our national security concerns. He has emboldened America's enemies and showed a dangerous weakness that some will be sure to challenge or exploit with Obama as Commander in Chief.

First Obama suspended the trials of terrorists being held at GITMO (Guantamo Bay Cuba Terrorist Detention Facility). Then Obama announced that GITMO would be closed altogether within one year - despite not having a plan in place on what to do with the terrorists being held there. Shortly after his announcement a video surfaced featuring two al-Qaida terrorists who had been held at GITMO - but then released. A Pentagon report indicates at least 61 GITMO detainees went on to commit or attempt to commit terrorist attacks after they were released from GITMO. And Obama now foolishly wants ALL detainees released from GITMO.

Obama similarly signed an executive order limiting the interrogation techniques U.S. intelligence officers can use in trying to obtain critical information from terrorists that could save American lives.

Obama also undermined the U.S. War on Terror by appeasing those who have been most critical of the missions of U.S. troops. His first call to a foreign head of state was not to a key U.S. ally (such as Britain or Israel) but instead to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Similarly, Obama's first official interview since becoming president was with a Middle Eastern television network known for broadcasting anti-American tirades, al-Arabiya television.

Barack Obama angered pro-life advocates across the globe when he signed an executive order allowing taxpayer funding of abortions at U.S. facilities around the globe.

While people may differ on abortion policies here in America, it is an affront to pro-life Americans to take their tax dollars and use them to end human life.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week pushed for $200 million in funding for birth control saying, "we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy." Astonishingly, the Democratic leadership was arguing that children are too costly for the nation at this time.

To his credit, Obama did ask House leaders to scrap the funding proposal, but he did not denounce Speaker Pelosi's comments, but instead said it was not the right time for such a proposal - concerned about the backlash from some Republicans on Capitol Hill over the issue,

For all the talk of "change" that Obama pledged to bring to Washington, he has instead surrounded himself with the same Washington establishment figures he had said were part of the nation's problems.

But what's been worse is seeing the controversies surrounding Obama's appointments.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been called a "tax cheat" for having evaded his taxes.

His pick for Commerce Secretary was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after it was announced that he was the target of a federal corruption probe.

Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, advocated clemency for 16 FALN terrorists during the Clinton administration and his law firm represents numerous individuals held at the GITMO terrorist detention facility.

And after Obama pledged not to have lobbyists serving in key posts in his administration he nominated an ex-lobbyist to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense.


Mr. Obama, Please don't close Guantanamo and send us home...they serve better meals here. (WARNING! Extremely graphic.)

Obama, Do you recall saying,
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
This is ugly!
These are your Hamas friends.
Where's Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers...
...and where is that darn ACLU when ya need 'em?
Watch what they serve their prisoners for meals...hope you can take it!
ps: Ya better get Hillary over there to straighten this mess out! People are dying!
Hey there, New York Times, What say you now? Oh, ya want to bring back water boarding. A little to late don't ya think! And hey, How come this didn't make your front page? Oh, I see, Bush went back to Texas. Let's see, what else was there? Aah, I got it. You're going to use the body count and blame it on the Americans 'cause these guys don't wear uniforms. Geneva Convention my butt!
Note to CAIR: You call this the religion of peace? Well. I, I, aah, I, aah, don't know... If you call this peace, I would not want you to get mad at me, whooo!
Aah, just one last question for Mr. Obama. "Which group of Muslims will you stand with?" The ones on the ground? Or, the ones doing the shooting?

'THE' view

----- Original Message -----

From: Leonard

To: Jack M; Vin; Jack; Mike

Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:46 PM

Subject: A German View on Islam

A German's View On Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. It is wishful thinking, rhetoric professed by our leaders, they feel compelled to speak out and at the same time attempt to be diplomatically correct in their comments. Being complacent will only bring the same terrible outcomes, only by standing up for the right principals can the fanatical ideals be defeated.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor- kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims hav e been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending iton, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

Dr. Emanuel Tanay, M.D.