Friday, April 22, 2011

Kissinger up to his old tricks...Will he get his way? (Lets hope not!)

 "... creating a “world treasury department” under the UN. This long-pending goal of the elite would give the International Monetary Fund power to dictate economic policy to every country on the globe."
Globalists Attend Bevy of Policy Meetings
April 22, 2011 by Infowars Ireland

By James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
Issue No.18, May 2, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Trilateral Commission (TC) luminaries were bouncing like yo-yos during their meeting in Washington April 8-10, when they met at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs.
Next, they hopped up the street to an Aspen Institute session on “Values and Diplomacy” at the National Cathedral, then some darted north to the historic Bretton Woods II conference in New Hampshire. Several Aspen Institute leaders also attend Trilateral and Bilderberg meetings.
Since these sessions happened around the same time, the international elite had to agree on instructions to give the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which met in Washington over the weekend of April 16 to April 17.
Henry Kissinger was the biggest yo-yo, giving the same speech at all of these meetings. David Rockefeller, 94, had less bounce. As Rockefeller’s valet, Kissinger kept his wheelchair moving briskly.
Kissinger, visibly depressed, gave a rationale for the war on Libya that the TC and its brother group, Bilderberg, want to keep rolling, according to an inside source who has proved reliable for years. Both groups want the war extended through 2012 to generate turmoil throughout the Middle East and pressure the United States into attacking Iran on behalf of Israel.Which would also produce huge war profits.
That it would be the greatest disaster for American policy in history is not important to these meddlers. In informal comments to bystanders before climbing to the podium, Kissinger continued groaning about a [expletive deleted] weekly journal that disclosed the Arab terrorists’ role in the Libyan rebellion.
But Kissinger’s only concern was that these facts “being forced into the national press makes it more difficult” to sell the invasion of Libya. After AFP exposed this, the major media picked it up but, for the most part, folded it deep into their Libya stories.
In all three speeches, Kissinger played the reluctant damsel who was firmly convinced that the United States must put boots on the ground in Libya—among all the wars that the U.S. is already involved in. America “should always support democracy and human rights politically, economically and diplomatically, just as we championed freedom for the Captive Nations during the ColdWar,” Kissinger said. “But as a general principle, our country should do so militarily only when a national interest is also at stake.”
He called this position “pragmatic realism.” So what is America’s national interest that is “at stake”? Libya is “an exception to the rule,” he explained.
While the United States has “no vital interest at stake in Libya,” Kissinger said, “a limited military intervention solely on humanitarian grounds could be justified.”
Muammar Qadaffi’s forces had already caused heavy casualties among civilians, he claimed. But no one will know for sure whether that is even true until the dust settles and independent journalists and researchers can get into Libya to study the situation. Again posturing as a reluctant warrior, Kissinger (a cook during World War II) said:
Our idealistic goals cannot be the sole motivation for the use of force. We cannot be the world’s policeman. We cannot use military force to meet every humanitarian challenge that might arise. Where would we stop? Syria, Yemen, Algeria or Iran? What about countries that have been strong allies but do not share all our values: Bahrain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia? What about humanitarian violations in other countries, such as Ivory Coast?
In defiance of facts to justify the U.S. attack, Kissinger reached for the nuclear button:
Conduct by Libya “may tempt the Iranian regime to speed its development of a nuclear weapon. Rogue states have to remain convinced of our determination to resist nuclear proliferation.”
So, according to Kissinger, invading Libya prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would threaten Israel. Kissinger was not merely mistaken, he was lying as defined by eight centuries of Anglo-Saxon common law.
It is a lie when one deliberately tells an untruth to enrich himself, injure another or both.
Here’s what Kissinger knows:
Iran is developing nuclear energy for electrical power. Iran is a member of the international group of nations opposing nuclear proliferation and allows its facilities to be inspected. Israel has unofficially had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and refuses to be inspected. This was first revealed by the late George Ball, undersecretary of state in the JFK administration and a Bilderberg luminary.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick, a leader of the Trilateralists and Bilderberg group, jumped on a food kick, also yo-yoing about the three meetings. He cited a 36-percent increase in food prices over the past year and called inflation the “biggest threat to the poor around the world.”
Start with high inflation, Zoellick said, “mix in price gyrations, and then stir in higher fuel costs, and you get a toxic brew of real pain contributing to social unrest.”
His remarks were intended to help pressure Congress into throwing more tax dollars at poor countries. The United States has long been the most generous nation on Earth, yet is routinely taken to the cleaners.
Also yo-yoing from the meetings in Washington and Bretton Woods were Trilateral-Bilderberg luminaries Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. Summers was a key White House economic adviser, and Volcker is a former Fed chairman who recently advised Barack Obama on a special economic panel until his replacement by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
Both pushed hard for creating a “world treasury department” under the UN. This long-pending goal of the elite would give the International Monetary Fund power to dictate economic policy to every country on the globe.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Lets face it, Muslims hate Christians and Obama is a Muslim... So what does that tell you?

Christians massacred by Muslims
Obama directs U.S. policy to support radical Islam

Radical Muslims in Africa's Ivory Coast, with the military backing of the United Nations and France, are perpetrating a massacre on the country's Christians while the Obama administration stands by and does nothing.
Now, Ivory Coast President-elect Alassane Ouattara's largely Muslim forces have kept Christian Laurent Gbagbo, the current president, in his Abidjan residence under siege.
In retaliation, Gbagbo forces launched two mortars and a rocket at the residence of the French ambassador and French helicopter gunships responded by attacking Gbagbo forces, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
In a report issued last week, Human Rights Watch documented that forces loyal to Ouattara killed hundreds of civilians and raped more than 20 alleged Gbagbo supporters as they burned at least 10 villages in the Ivory Coast's western region.
"People interviewed by Human Rights Watch described how, in village after village, pro-Ouattara forces, now called the Republican forces of Côte d'Ivorie (Forces Républicaines Côte d'Ivorie, FRCI) summarily executed and raped Gbagbo supporters in their homes, as they worked in the fields, as they fled, or as they tried to hide in the bush," the report noted. "The fighters often targeted people by ethnicity, and the attacks disproportionately affected those too old or feeble to flee."
On Saturday, reports from the Ivory Coast published by the London Evening Standard indicate that more than 200 bodies, some of them burned alive, have been found in the country.
The newspaper reported the concern of the International Rescue Committee that even if the military showdown in Abidjan were to end, the looting, hostility, bloodshed, reprisal killings and sexual assaults will continue to escalate in communities across the country.
The silence of the Obama administration on the violence in the Ivory Coast makes hypocritical the president's declaration in his May 28 speech on Libya that U.S. military action there was necessary to prevent a massacre by Gadhafi that "would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
The truth is that Obama, like the French and the U.N., support the radical Muslims that have taken over the "rebel forces" in Libya, just as Obama, the French and the U.N. support the Muslims in the Ivory Coast trying to remove from power the current Christian president, even if the Muslim supporters of Ouattara engage in massacres and mass rape against Christians.
What the Ivory Coast situation makes clear is that the consistency in the Obama administration's policy regarding the turmoil in North Africa is that Obama directs U.S. policy to support radical Islam, even to the point of being hypocritical in arguing United States policy is motivated by a desire to protect human rights and prevent massacre in the various ongoing conflicts in countries including the Ivory Coast and Libya.
This is the ugly truth the mainstream media in the United States will never openly report.
Ivory Coast background
The dynamics of the Ivory Coast turmoil are fairly simple to understand.
The current president, Laurent Gbagbo, is locked in a controversy with challenger Alassane Ouattara over the contested results of a Nov. 28 election.
The Ivory Coast Election Commission, or CEI, declared Ouattara the winner with 54.1 percent of the vote, only to have the Constitutional Council nullify the CEI's decision and declare that Gbagbo won with 51 percent of the vote after votes attributed to voter fraud were thrown out.
Most of the international community, including the United Nations, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, has rejected this result, declaring instead that Ouattara is the legitimate winner.
Both Gbabgo and Ouattara have taken competing oaths of office, with each claiming to be the legitimate winner of the Nov. 28 election.
Now, for what's really going on.
Gbagbo is a Christian who is supported mainly by Christians that dominate the southern part of the Ivory Coast.
Ouattara is a Muslim who is supported mainly by Muslims that dominate the northern part of the Ivory Coast.
Will Christianity long survive in the Ivory Coast?
Red Alert is getting inundated by emails from concerned Ivory Coast insiders who are worried Christianity may not survive in Africa if the international community ousts Gbabgo.
If civil war comes to the Ivory Coast, the violence will almost certainly descend into tribal violence, with the risk that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent Ivory Coast citizens being massacred.
The underlying issue, rarely discussed in the controversy is whether the Ivory Coast will tip toward Islam should Ouattara end up replacing Gbabgo as the next president of the Ivory Coast.

Related story (Warning! Extremely graphic!) ...Homosexuals burned alive in Iraq (video)  ...apparently, Obama loves this or else he would have done something about it.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Are gun owners hypocrites? Check your 'sights' here to find out!

"How many headlines have we seen over the past two years about the usurper camped out in the White House going to grab your firearms? Endless. There are approximately 85 million gun owners in this country. How many of them voted for the putative president, Obama/Soetoro/Dunham? If every single gun owner in this country had gotten off their backsides and voted against him in November 2008, not even vote fraud could have ushered such a despicable liar into office." ~ Devvy Kidd at News With Views 


"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833 
Everyday my mail box brings in several urgent notices to fight some gun bill either in the Outlaw Congress or the states:

3/16/2011----- Original Message -----
Senate to Consider Anti-gun Funding Resolution on Thursday
Gun Owners of America has written Senate members to ....

Here's another one:

NJ Continues To Trash 2nd Amendment! March 17, 2011

New Jersey Continues to Trash Second Amendment in Right to Carry Lawsuit - Second Amendment Committee

"NJ Attorney General Argues That The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms Does Not Apply Outside the Home and That the Public Needs to be Protected From Those Legally Carrying!! On March 16, the New Jersey Attorney General filed its final lower court response in the recently-filed lawsuit challenging New Jersey's extreme and subjective handgun carry laws. As in its previous papers, the Attorney General again trashed the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to bear arms does not apply outside the home, and that New Jersey's carry laws are constitutional and necessary to protect the public from those who legally carry firearms."

Same old, same old and it's been going on for decades. Now, one would think that gun owners in this country would have gotten fed up a long time ago with this never ending game of back and forth on the Second Amendment. After all, the solution is there, it's always been there, but for some reason, no one wants to cure the cancer, just treat the symptoms. That is especially true for politicians. After all, there's no reelection in the cure, only more Band Aids.

How many headlines have we seen over the past two years about the usurper camped out in the White House going to grab your firearms? Endless. There are approximately 85 million gun owners in this country. How many of them voted for the putative president, Obama/Soetoro/Dunham? If every single gun owner in this country had gotten off their backsides and voted against him in November 2008, not even vote fraud could have ushered such a despicable liar into office.

Yet, the numbers tell us a whole lot of gun owners must have voted for Obama/Soetoro. Why? Because the fraud in the White House, Mr. Cool, had his mojo working and promised hope and change. Guess their Second Amendment rights didn't count for much when sweet talked by such a skilled snake oil salesman who couldn't possibly (and never intended) deliver what he promised the masses.

Millions of words have been written about the Second Amendment, never ending court cases and endless bushels of money thrown at politicians to "fight for our Second Amendment rights". Yet, gun owners are still fighting battles instead of decisively winning the war.

Do gun owners really want to stop the constant assault on the Second Amendment? Quite frankly, so far, I don't think so. Oh, there are many who do, but it's a very small percentage of gun owners pushing for the solution instead of more hurry up and call the Outlaw Congress or your state house to fight another gun bill. Why, some gun owners believe the right to own and bear arms means their hunting rifle for deer season; I kid you not.

What is the final solution? The constitutional militia reconstituted by the state legislatures. That is the ONLY constitutional solution that will stop federal and state gun laws and activist judges interfering with your gun rights. Why? Because as Edwin has written based on historical facts and the whole wording of the Second Amendment: if you're between the ages of 16 and 60 you are required to own a firearm and be part of the militia. Not private militias, of which there are many who are peacefully training and being prepared for natural disasters in their area. However, there are no constitutional militia in this country as mandated by the Second Amendment.

Like millions of Americans, I didn't fully understand or appreciate the real meaning of the whole Second Amendment until I began reading Edwin's columns back in 2005 on NWVs. These are a must read:

Once you fully understand the intent of the militia as is defined in the Second Amendment, then you will begin to understand, as I did, why all this time and money expended on fighting one anti-gun bill or another thousand is simply a waste of time and money. It hasn't cured the problem, it just drags it out in one court room battle after another. All the emails screeching the UN is going to take your gun maybe good for fund raising, but I never see the real solution in the sales pitch.

I ask again: Do gun owners in this country want to stop all the gun grabbing bills or do you want to continue treating the symptoms? Every time I see another email with the subject matter: Stop this gun bill, I trash it because they're all the same.

What can you do? First, do like I did and get fully educated on the issue. Start with the two columns cited above. You can also listen to a few of Edwin's columns on audio for free; click here. I recorded them so that every American can listen and learn. Download to a CD or your IPod and listen on a plane or a train or the bus. Time is in short supply, but without a complete understanding of what the real militia to maintain a free state actually means, you cannot help defeat our enemies. I've sent dozens of copies to state reps and senators in my state and half dozen others asking them to please reconstitute the militia under the control of the state. Not counting more than 18,000 hard copies over the past years since I recorded that special edition. Just imagine what would happen if 40-50 MILLION gun owners did the same. State legislators would feel the heat of the 2012 elections.

Think it wouldn't make a difference with your state legislator? Of course it would and it would also tell your state legislator you have their back because the stupid and ignorant in the state houses who hate the Second Amendment will go after them if a bill is introduced with slash and burn labels like radicals. Patrick Henry was called a radical. He gave several speeches on the purse and the sword. If not for Patrick Henry, the "radical", it's unlikely there would have been a Bill of Rights at all. So, let the name calling begin and we'll see who wins the war.

I guarantee you that if the millions of gun owners in this country don't go after the cure, nothing will change no matter which party holds power in the Outlaw Congress or your state capitol. If you are a member of Gun Owners of America, the NRA or other gun rights organizations, write them a short letter asking them to help lead the way in reconstituting the constitutional militia in the states; include a copy of the CD. Since they are pro Second Amendment, I don't know why they won't come out on the front lines to advocate for the true meaning of the Second Amendment, do you?

Of course, there will be all kinds of screeching and hysteria from gutless cowards like Chuckie Schumer, Michael Bloomberg (Fascist mayor of NYC), the incredibly, stupid empty headed, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY] and many others. Forget them and drown out their ignorance with the truth and persistence. Focus on your state rep and senator. Get your local gun organization together, find out who can get to your state capitol and send a delegation to meet with your public servants. Bring my CD (for which I profit not a penny) to give to him/her, and if you can afford it (pool your $$ and buy two copies), purchase Dr. Vieira's book, Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States. Volume I, The Nation in Arms; one for your state rep and one for your state senator.

Lots of fine books are out there on the right to own and bear arms, But A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States is the definitive work on the history of the Second Amendment every gun owner should know. Edwin is working on Vol. II and once it's published, I'll get a few copies and get it to my state rep and a few of his colleagues. In my case, I won't bother with my state senator. He's another Republican who wouldn't know what the U.S. Constitution said if James Madison stood in front of him and read it word for word.

Now, where are my fellow Texans who are gun owners and believe in the Second Amendment? Are you willing to do what I've done or just sit on the side lines? It doesn't cost anything to download the CD except the cost of a blank CD. If you can't make it to Austin, send a short letter with the CD to your state rep; will cost you less than a buck in postage. Then follow up phone calls. Is that so difficult to win this war instead of just more skirmishes? How about you up in Montana or over in Kentucky? Do you want the solution or just more "call your congress critter"?
It will take only one state to bring itself back into constitutional compliance and other states will follow. Okay, realistically, it won't happen in California or New York. Not that you shouldn't try, you should. If your state rep or senator is an ignorant anti-gun zealot like Carolyn McCarthy, it would be a waste of time, but you can get the above mentioned materials to your local gun group and contact Gun Owners of America, the NRA and others asking them to put their considerable weight behind this effort. Because, guess what? I can tell you as sure as the sun shines that unless we see this happen, the crack down on guns (and ammunition) will continue with more and more laws. Gun owners will continue "fighting" gun "laws" with more of their money and time only to get little for their efforts. Kind of like trying to climb a sand dune.

How about stop doing the same thing that brings the same losing results? Either you're sick and tired and fed up with worn out non-solutions or you're willing to work towards the solution. The choice is yours and I hope it will be the constitutional one.

Educational links:

Order: Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States.
Volume I, The Nation in Arms
$19.95 ($20.95 for Virginia residents) to: Dr. Edwin Vieira,
52 Stonegate Ct., Front Royale, VA 22630

1 - Go look at this newspaper I scanned many years to and continue to link over the years. 'Our civilian-military face-off' (Sacramento Bee, November 30, 1997)
2 - Second Amendment Committee


© 2011 - - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail AlertsE-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

2nd Amendment at stake: Will your shotgun be illegal? ...Obama is trying to make it so!

Update: Be sure to read the post following this: Are gun owners hypocrites? Check your 'sights' here to find out! ...a must read for all gunowners! ~ Storm'n Norm'n

"This is not just an issue for gun owners. This is an issue of the Obama administration overreaching, and violating the Constitution in the process. Restricting our rights by regulatory fiat should concern every American." ~ sourceThe Landmark Report

Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed? Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way
Source: The Blaze

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.
In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on, author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.
Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.
Part 1, which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:
The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.
Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.
Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.
Part 2, which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:
In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”
However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.
In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)
One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:
(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
(2) bayonet lugs;
(3) flash suppressors;
(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
(5) grenade-launcher mounts;
(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
(7) light enhancing devices;
(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.
Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports. 
Part 3, which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:
But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from? 
And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:
One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.
So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”
Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.


*According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.


Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:
The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.
Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.
Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”
Bonus Video

Is this the future of Capitalism?

Source for the following: Fox News

U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether 'Mother Earth' Deserves Human Rights Status
By Jonathan Wachtel

United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”
A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.
Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community -- plants, animals, and terrain.
Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding -- an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.
“The concept ‘Mother Earth’ is not universally accepted,” said a spokesman from the British Mission to the U.N. about Bolivia’s proposal. “In general, our view is that we should focus on tackling important sustainable development issues through existing channels and processes.” 
The General Assembly two years ago passed a Bolivia-led resolution proclaiming April 22 as “International Mother Earth Day.” The measure was endorsed by all 192 member states. But Bolivian President Evo Morales envisioned much more, vowing in a speech to U.N. delegates that a global movement had begun to lay “out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”
Morales, who repeatedly says “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism,” called for creating a charter that defends the right to life for all living things. Morales, who was named World Hero of Mother Earth by the General Assembly, has since made great strides in his campaign.
In January, Bolivia became the world’s first nation to grant the natural environment equal rights to humans. Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth is heavily influenced by the spiritual indigenous Andean world outlook that revolves around the earth deity Pachamama, roughly translated to Mother Earth.
The Bolivian law establishes 11 rights for nature that include: the right to life and to exist; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered; the right to have nature’s processes free from human alteration. The law also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth to act as an ombudsman, which will ensure nature is “not being affected my mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.”
Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet.
Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6. U.N. critics slammed the decision to devote an entire day debating Mother Earth legislation as not only a waste of time and resources, but a major blunder.
“The UN is a one-act show,” said U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the U.N., in which “Western democracies are responsible for the world’s ills and developing countries are perpetual victims.”
Bayefsky said the General Assembly’s focus on Mother Earth distracts from more pressing issues and problems at the U.N.
“The rights of inanimate objects violated by developed countries are considered a useful focal point this month,” she said, adding that, “Syria is scheduled to be elected next month to the U.N.’s top “human” rights body, and Iran is on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.” Syria is one of the sponsors of the “Mother Earth” treaty.
Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N., Pablo Solon, who will represent Morales at the debate and ‘expert’ panel discussions at U.N. headquarters, said, “Presently many environmentally harmful human activities are completely legal,” including those that cause climate change.
“If legal systems recognized the rights of other-than-human beings,” he says, such as mountains, rivers, forests and animals, “courts and tribunals could deal with the fundamental issues of environmental contamination.”
It is not clear if Bolivia’s new tough environmental laws will actually go as far as to protect life forms like insects, but the legislation does include all living creatures.

Bizzare Murder: Boyfriend wactches murder of girlfriend during online chat

Source: Fox News

Boyfriend in China Watches Murder of Girlfriend in Toronto Online

A boyfriend living in China witnessed the murder of his girlfriend in Toronto over the web.
Qian "Necole" Liu, a 23-year-old York University student from Beijing, was found dead just before noon Friday in her apartment. Toronto police are still looking for a man reportedly seen struggling with her earlier that morning.
Police say Liu was chatting with her boyfriend by webcam at about 1 a.m. when an unknown man knocked on the door.
"She opened the door to a male. She could have known the male but he was unknown to the online witness," Toronto Police Det. Frank Skubic told the Daily Mail.
It took police more than 10 hours to arrive at the scene after Liu's boyfriend contacted her friends living in Toronto.
Toronto Police Constable Tony Vella explained to the Daily Mail that they were not notified until Friday morning.
"Someone had gone to (her) address because they were concerned for her well-being and they went into the apartment and they found her there and they were concerned so they contacted police," he told the paper.
Liu was found naked from the waist down, but that there were no obvious signs of sexual assault or trauma that would have led to her death, police say.
"She was unclothed from the waist down and had been dead for a period of time. There was no trauma to the body which could readily identify the manner of her death and no obvious signs of sexual abuse," Skubic told the paper.
Police say the laptop is also missing.
A York University spokeswoman says they are concerned for students who live off-campus.
"We're doing everything possible to make this a safe environment. It can be a challenge when we don't have any authority off campus," spokeswoman Susan Webb told the Daily Mail.
There are currently no suspects in custody.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Is your city in debt? Sandy Springs, Georgia is not! ...see how its done!

If all you do is watch the video...that should cover it!  Perhaps its time your mayor took a look at Sandy Springs, Georgia. ~ Norm

How To Run A City, Cheaply
Source: Politics Alabama
Have you ever heard of Sandy Springs, a city on the outskirts of Atlanta? With most cities across this nation cutting services, laying off employees, and raising taxes, they are doing none of this. They also have no debt at all.
I only bring this up because Montgomery, Prattville, and Wetumpka are all talking about tax increases of one kind or another. Maybe we could learn a little from Sandy Springs.
How are they doing it, you ask? Simple... they have outsourced virtually every aspect of their city government to private companies, who manage to provide the same services city government would have, but for half the cost. Here's a video documenting this impressive city and their model of governing.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:

Maybe this should be a case study for all elected officials.

Letters from Ripley said...
In a town of 5,000 residents....other than the town clerk, the mayor, the council, and your law enforcement....that ought to be it for direct-hire, and everyone else...even the fire department...ought to be contracted out. The problem is convincing people that this would work. Everyone wants to be convinced that it won't be some El Salvadoran illegal alien doing official town business like mowing grass, replacing city light bulbs, or running the recreation center.
Politics Alabama said...
Convincing people it will work is why I am posting this video. It does work, and it works better than the "normal" cities that are run directly by the city government. Keep in mind that Sandy Springs isn't a town of 5,000 people, either, it's population is in the 100,000 range. The private sector is much more efficient, generally speaking, than is the government. Why? Private businesses get rewards for efficiency, while governments get rewards of NOT being efficient. Don't believe me? Listen to almost any city or county wailing that they need more money to improve the quality of a failing school system. When they do a good job, there is no incentive to give them more money. Governments justify increased revenue by some kind of failure... and that's a perverse incentive system.

Hawaii Taxpayers About To Be Slaughtered

In the May 21st 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal, John Steele Gordon writes an op-ed, “Why Government Can’t Run A Business” where he describes a few examples of the blundering business errors of bureaucratic run enterprises.  Gordon goes on to list some of the reasons why government should stay out of the free market system.  And although he does not quite come up with the words that I think should have been included and that is, businesses tend to run much better when they are under the control of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand for once the government’s hand steps in disaster is sure to follow…it always does!  With that said, perhaps the politicians in the Hawaii State House should consider reading Gordon’s editorial and stay out of the private sector.  The only assurances that the taxpayers can be assured of if the state takes control of the slaughter house is that the taxpayers will be the ones slaughtered…leave the pork alone! (literally! ...see article below).  ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source: Star Advertiser

State eyes meat facility
Senate Bill 249 gives the government rights to purchase Oahu's only slaughterhouse
By Chris Mikesell

Hawaii would be the first state to own a slaughterhouse, under a bill moving in the Legislature.  The state House on Tuesday passed Senate Bill 249, which would allow the state to appropriate money to purchase, upgrade and outfit Oahu's only certified slaughterhouse facility.
The plant is on state-owned land in Campbell Industrial Park. Lawmakers estimate that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Dono­van Dela Cruz (D, Kaena-Wahiawa-Pupu­kea), could cost Hawaii taxpayers between $1 million and $1.6 million.
The facility has had a history of financial insolvency. The Hawaii Livestock Cooperative, current owner of the plant, bought the slaughterhouse from the Palama Meat Co. when Palama filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004.
The plant slaughters about 850 hogs a month, with each animal yielding an average of 200 pounds of meat, said Leonard Oshiro, general manager of Hawaii Livestock Cooperative. He estimated that the plant accounts for about 10 percent of the pork consumed in Hawaii, with most of the rest being imported frozen pork.
HLC primarily does pork, but it is proc­ess­ing local grass-fed beef on a trial basis from places like the North Shore, Oshiro said.
There are also slaughterhouses on the Big Island, Maui and Kauai.
State officials expressed concern about the economic viability of the Kalaeloa facility in 2007 when the Department of Agriculture reported to the Legislature that rising feed costs were stifling Hawaii's pork and dairy markets.
Animal rights groups, including PETA, the Humane Society and the Vegetarian Society of Hawaii, opposed the bill, saying that the state should not be in the business of supporting meat-based diets. Some animal rights advocates, borrowing a tea party argument, also opposed the bill on the grounds that the deal amounted to a taxpayer bailout for a failing business.
"Why don't we just give plant farmers a break by simply putting animal agriculture on the free market where it belongs?" said William Harris, an animal rights supporter. "If people want to eat meat, let them pay the open market price."
The bailout argument resonated even among lawmakers who supported the measure.
"They're right. This is a bailout," said House Minority Leader Kymberly Pine (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point). "But there is no other slaughterhouse on Oahu."
Pine said that though she initially disliked the idea of a bailout, she was persuaded to support the deal because losing the facility would be a "huge risk to Hawaii's food security."
Myrone Murakami, president of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, acknowledged that when Hawaii's local dairy industry collapsed, it took the state's beef industry with it.
"Where do you think most of our hamburger comes from?" said Mura­kami. "When the dairy industry was still moving here on Oahu, they culled their milking cows (to be slaughtered for beef)."
Murakami said losing the slaughterhouse would mean more than just the loss of local beef. It would also affect the availability of "hot" pork, a product that needs to be delivered to markets within hours of slaughter to maintain its quality.
Bailout or no, Murakami said the alternative would be much worse.
"They've been put in a pretty desperate situation given what has happened to the livestock industry," Mura­kami said. "But if it fails, the availability of the local stuff will disappear. That's a given."
Oshiro said the Hawaii Livestock Cooperative spent $3.3 million to finish the Kalaeloa facility in 2000. Building a new facility would cost $8 million to $9 million, he said.
Oshiro said the facility is needed and should be retained.
"We're saving it for the industry," he said. "That's my goal. Whether we run it or not, it would be stupid to let it go."

FEMA Shakeout...What will you do?

Source: FEMA

April 18, 2011

Less than 2 Weeks to Go to Central U.S. Shakeout – What Will You Do?

By Craig Fugate, FEMA Administrator
For months, FEMA has been working closely with 11 of our state partners and many other members of the team to get the word out about the Great Central U.S. Shakeout – the first-ever multi-state public earthquake drill taking place next Thursday, April 28 at 10:15 am central time.

And as of today, we’re less than two weeks away – which means it’s time for all of us, across the entire team, to get involved and do our part to get the word out. Why?

The recent – and tragic - earthquakes we’ve seen from Japan, the fifth largest earthquake in recorded history, to the earthquakes that struck New Zealand, Chile, Haiti and our own U.S. territory of American Samoa, that destructive disasters can hit us anytime, anywhere, and often without any warning.

And none of us – no matter where we live – are immune. In fact, earthquake activity has been felt in all fifty states. Like it or not, we simply don’t have the luxury of thinking “this couldn’t happen here.”

While we can’t prevent earthquakes or other disasters, we can take important steps to prepare for them. One way you can prepare is to join more than two million people who are participating in The Great Central U.S. ShakeOut, the largest earthquake preparedness event in central U.S. history. Eleven states are participating in the ShakeOut, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee; and so far, over 2.2 million people have signed up.

It’s a great start, but with 40 million people living in the central U.S. region, we know we can do even better.

Drills like the Shakeout are among the easiest and most cost-effective ways individuals and communities can learn how to protect themselves if an earthquake strikes. It’s easy to sign up; it’s free; and anyone can participate from anywhere – whether you are at school, at the office, at home, on the soccer field, or even visiting the doctor. All you have to do is sign-up here to get simple instructions on how to participate.

So we’re challenging all of you, our partners on the team, to join us in The Great American ShakeOut. Get involved; and be prepared!

If you’re a Member of Congress in one of the 11 central U.S. states participating in the ShakeOut, help us get the word out to your constituents. Make plans to participate in an event or do a drill with your congressional office. Post ShakeOut information, including widgets, on your website.

If you’re a school, college or university, plan a "shakeout" drill on your campus. Already, over 1,526 schools and 62 colleges and universities are participating.

If you own, manage or work at a business, get your staff and coworkers involved. Already, over 200 businesses and 290 non-profits have signed up, and that doesn’t include the many state and local government agencies that are planning to do drills.

At FEMA – we’ll be doing our part, in partnership with our regional offices in the central U.S., to participate in drills on April 28. We’ll be sharing more about our plans on the FEMA blog, so stay tuned.

Learn more about how to participate here:

And if you’re already participating, let us know what you’re planning. Leave a comment below or tweet me @craigatfema.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Trump, Obama, O'Reilly, and Oh what a mess!

This is an excellent commentary regarding Obama's birth certificate and leans very heavily against his legitimacy to be President of the United States  something I've always been concerned about since the usurper's rise to power.  I also strongly believe that most, if not all, of his cronies know of his illigitimate status thus making them participants in the crime...just this thought alone wants me to cheer in advance of Rahm Emanuel or Elena Kagen arrest and incarceration (yeah, I only named two but everybody from Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, and the whole bunch, including Robert F. Bauer, should go to jail for life).  Also, Bill O'Reilly displays far too much respect for Obama and apparently has not studied the Obama-Alinsky connection as one in his position should...he (O'Reilly) has a Phd. in history but looks like a dunce when it comes to Obama. 
Meanwhile I've  posted the the two known birth certificates at the bottom of this page and one of them appears very be the judge. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: American Thinker

Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge
By Carol A. Taber
According to the typical liberal media narrative, those of us who have questioned President Obama's life documents are kooks. Nuts. Creeps. "Birthers." When Donald Trump raises issues with the birth certificate, members of the left, right, and center assume that he's doing so for political reasons and that there's no real story. They use the Old Jedi Mind Trick: "nothing to see here ... move along."

There's only one problem. There's something to see here.
There has been an enormous amount of misinformation with regard to Obama's life documents from well-meaning grassroots activists (some of whom are too trusting or inexperienced to know how to vet information properly) to media personalities (who are often sloppy and/or ignorant of the facts involved) to agenda-driven snake oil salesmen (who are using grassroots ire to fundraise or sell their books) to outright disinformation supplied by the Obama Administration itself. But just because there are many people who confuse the life documents issue doesn't mean there isn't one.
In fact, there are two.
For over two years, I have been privy to private investigators' files, have seen private investigations of other private investigations, have done my own research -- and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are two crucial problems with President Obama's life documents. First, the registration number on Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" (which, as Trump recently explained to an incredulous Meredith Vieira, is not a long form birth certificate) is out of sequence to other birth certificates issued on the very next day in Hawaii to a pair of twins named Nordyke (certifications of live birth and birth certificates carry the same registration number).
Second, according to a private investigator, Susan Daniels, whose work was validated by at least two other investigators I'm aware of, the Social Security number that Obama used for approximately 25 years was issued with a Connecticut-based number, though neither Obama nor anyone in his family lived in that state at any point during their lifetimes. Bill O'Reilly claimed on his April 14, 2011, show that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., lived in Connecticut "for several years", but when I called O'Reilly for verification of his source(s), I was put into a voicemail and received no return call. As of this writing, it appears that O'Reilly's Mailbag Segment on Obama's Social Security number has been scrubbed by Fox News from the podcast of the show, along with some viewer mail on the subject.
Contrary to Mr. O'Reilly's claim and according to private investigations, after Obama Sr. left Hawaii, he lived in Cambridge, Mass, which he left for Africa in 1965. Obama Sr. never worked or took classes in Connecticut, and no one has ever proven or even given a reason for his living in that state. We know that 1977-79 was the period when Obama's Connecticut-based Social Security number was issued because private investigators have tracked down the dates when the Social Security numbers directly above and below Obama's number were issued. Both of these numbers were issued to Connecticut residents. But from 1972 until his death in a car crash in 1982, Barack Obama Sr. was in Kenya. During this period he was never in America. We reach this conclusion because Obama Sr.'s addresses have been tracked and can be seen in several private investigator data bases.
So it appears Obama Sr. had nothing to do with the application for Obama's Social Security number, as Mr. O'Reilly suggested. But then again, this is the same O'Reilly who also announced on his April 14th show that, although Obama's birth certificate has not been made public, Hawaii officials have it on file. This about-face conflicts with his 2008 statement that he'd actually seen the birth certificate and that's how he knows Obama is legitimate. "We have a copy of it," he said at the time. (NB: such a possession would have been illegal.)
Not only have these issues been ignored or derided by the press, any attempt to answer these questions has been stymied at the state level. Obscured by countless charges and counter-charges, and under the cover of stealth legislation, Hawaii has changed the law and the language with regard to the release of birth certificates, making it very difficult if not impossible to establish the veracity of any charges with regard to Obama's. One can only surmise that if fraud has indeed occurred, a cover-up of that fraud was the goal -- and accomplishment -- here.
But we need not allow state governments, or anyone, to cover up the Obama birth certificate conundrum. There is something we can do. We can ask states to adopt legislation that requires candidates to make public their long form birth certificates in order to be placed on the presidential ballot, and in accordance with Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Arizona has already attempted something along these lines, but Arizona's law doesn't go far enough: it permits forensics testing only on secondary documents -- which is to say, if a long form birth certificate is not submitted, there will be no forensics testing on it. Instead, states must pass bills requiring forensics testing of any and all life documents submitted to them, if questions arise about them.
In order to push for such legislation, we all must shift into second gear. Instead of asking "where is the birth certificate?," we must now demand that whatever documents are released on a candidate's life, such documents must be subjected to forensic testing. Anyone who's concealed his documents (and hired lawyers to fight efforts in court to reveal his place of birth), as Mr. Obama has, appears not trustworthy; his actions alone demand forensics testing for any document he produces as proof of his "natural born" status. As Ronald Reagan famously put it, "Trust, but verify."
To date, no such total verification has taken place and thus secrets remain hidden. Instead, sloppy reporting and careless statements, including one made by the Republican National Committee (whom I also called to verify their sources and have received no return call), have been based on second-hand reporting rather than on investigative fact checking. And Obama has something to hide. If he didn't, Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, would not be sending bullying letters to other attorneys promising sanctions, court costs, etc., if the birth certificate case were pursued against them (see threatening letter here). Obama wouldn't be spending money to defend against these lawsuits if there were no problems -- he'd be releasing his documentation pronto. For his trouble, Bob Bauer has been promoted to White House Counsel. Clearly, Obama's life documents -- which remain sealed from public view -- pose a problem for him, and the behavior of his inner circle proves it.

This is something that Mr. Trump seems to know instinctively. He has been unafraid in his pursuit of Obama's birth certificate. He has suggested an investigation of Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who brashly promised that he would release Obama's birth certificate when he took office, only to say -- after having dug into the birth records -- that he didn't know he wasn't allowed to release such a thing. After Mr. Trump's perfectly reasonable suggestion, Abercrombie has been quiet.

Trump has stated that he has investigators on the ground in Hawaii checking on the birth certificate firsthand, and has stated that they "can't believe" what they are finding. Trump may understand that deception has already occurred here -- when Obama released his "Certification of Live Birth" in 2007 as if it were a valid birth certificate, it appears he meant to deceive the public. Trump's refusal to back off the birth certificate issue has the elites frowning, the base in an uproar, and Obama on his heels.
Meanwhile, the Republican establishment continues to shrink from the once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity Obama has handed them by his concealments. Frightened to attack Obama's "character," they instead insist on attacking his policies -- the same failed strategy that McCain (and they) have already tried. The Obama campaign and presidency, day after day, assassinated Bush's character (and now others) and lied continually, full of guile, about Obama's policies and political beliefs at the same time, and they continue this practice even today. 
Why? Because it's effective. The vast majority of Americans already agree with Republicans on the major issues -- health care, "don't ask, don't tell," the stimulus package, the deficit -- policy arguments which Republicans have lost to Obama because they refuse to pull out the big guns. Were the Democrats thinking about beating Nixon on policy when they went after him on Watergate? The Republicans seem willing to allow Obama to waltz to a second term, unchallenged in this terribly important Constitutional issue, and Americans care deeply about their Constitution, simply out of spinelessness.
Trump has a spine, which is why he is gaining momentum and has pulled way ahead of the pack. Now we must convert that momentum into action. Instead of passing judgment about who is crazy or sane on the issues of the birth certificate and the Social Security number, we must ask Obama to show his hand, and we then must forensically test whatever he has, or he must fold. Forensics testing is not an outlandish idea; as distasteful as this analogy might be -- a sordid affair vs. a serious Constitutional issue -- forensics testing of a blue dress a few years ago revealed another set of lies of a young U.S. president, also attempting to defraud the public.
Because of the irregularities and unanswered questions outlined above, certainly the American people have a right to know whether the birth record that supposedly establishes the eligibility of their president is un-tampered with. And they also have a right to know whether the social security number that he has been using is genuinely his or stolen. Use of another person's social security number is a felony. 
In the interests of full transparency and disclosure, in the interests of protecting the Constitution and the integrity of our elections, we need to force Obama and all other presidential candidates to show us their birth certificates before they join any presidential campaign and demonstrate they are eligible to serve us. Anything less is a deep betrayal of our most basic democratic ideals.
Carol A. Taber is president of
Obama's Two Birth Cerificates....Which one looks authentic?
(click on picture to enlarge or go here and here for separate views)