|If you would like to place an
advertisement please contact us
|In God We Trust - God Bless America
|The Heart of America Will Rise.
|Obama Beware America's Might Arises
We need your help in promoting this site. We have been online since June 2009 and the best and only way we have of letting citizens
know about us is by word of mouth. By we, I mean "I". This is a one man operation, so PLEASE, tell everyone you know and lets make
this site a strong tool in the defense of our nation. This site is nether Republican nor Democrat, it is for the American patriot and we
will never ask a citizen to support it with monetary contributions. We only ask that you contribute your opinions and news.
So email us your views on what is happening to our country.
Noel K. Desmond "The Editor"
Chiefland, Florida U.S.A.
|I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man
standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston Churchill --
|How many observe Christ's birth-day! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743
|Please view our Sound Off, Email and
|But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature,
nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.
Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789
|Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution,
which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. –
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people.
It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government
lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
- Patrick Henry -
|If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose
creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the
exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788
|The Quote of the Decade
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our
Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, the
buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006!
|Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775
|Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
~Thomas Jefferson ~
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the
pretense of taking care of them.
-Thomas Jefferson -
|The Second Amendment is in place in case the
politicians ignore the others.
General Dwight Eisenhower
|Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people
against the dangers of good intentions.There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they
mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
|This site is exactly as it's name implies. It's a sounding board for the
American citizen's voice. We as a people must never neglect to defend
the rights handed to us by our forefathers and protected by our fallen.
Hopefully, this site will become a tool in that defense.
Remember, Freedom is not Free.
Many have paid a price which leaves them speechless.
United We Stand- Divided We Fall.
God Bless Our Troops and Nation
The Editor. Semper Fi
|Colonnel Allen West: I don’t regret whatsoever my
comments about progressives being communists, I will
keep calling a spade a spade
|It's time that our elected officials realize that they are
American's first and politicians only at our bequest.
Please don't allow another BENGHAZI
|"It's my intention, if elected, to disarm
America to the level of acceptance to our
Middle East Brethren".
Barack Hussein Obama
|"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should
be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and
the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero , 55 BC
So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.
|Let’s Have That Conversation About Guns
Dec 17, 2012
For once I agree with liberals. It’s high time to have a conversation about guns. Let’s start with the problem that there are far too few guns on our
Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re
supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate
creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to
Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails
because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is
keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.
Well, almost no citizens. “Gun control” means all guns under the control of the government and available only to it and, of course, to politically
connected cronies. Gun-grabbing poser Michael Bloomberg is going to be surrounded by enough fire power to remake the movie Heat. He’s always
going to be protected. The purpose of gun control is to ensure that we aren’t.
So let’s have that conversation, and let’s lay the cards on the table. Modern firearms (which really aren’t that modern) are highly effective weapons in
the hands of an evil little freak who gets off shooting children. They are also highly effective weapons in my hands when defending my children from
evil little freaks.
Liberals ask why I need these weapons. The answer is simple. I’m going to be as well-armed or better armed than the threat. Period.
Here’s the fact – bad people are going to have guns. And if you’ve ever smoked a joint, you are disqualified from arguing that prohibition works.
So, while we are talking, let’s talk about what we lawyers call “causation.” Since apparently we need a whole batch of new laws, perhaps we ought to
see what laws might have prevented this crime. Well, we outlawed murder, but that didn’t seem to help. We outlawed stealing, but that creep stole the
guns from his mother. He transported them, took them to a school, loaded them – all criminal violations, as was merely possessing the pistols at his
Well, maybe he would have been stopped by new laws. Maybe we could ban 30 round magazines? Well, when one walks into a class of children it is
unlikely that a couple more magazine changes – a relatively unskilled user can do it in three seconds – would make much difference.
Maybe we could have better background checks. Wait, the creep stole the guns from someone who would have passed any background check. No
Well, then maybe the only real answer is to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is pretty much every defensive weapon outside of shotguns and
revolvers. It’s also contrary to the Second Amendment and the constitutions of at least 40 states.
We should talk about the Constitution. Liberals have an amazing gift for finding things in it that have eluded everyone else. They have divined a right to
abortion that the Founders apparently intended to enshrine within it, however subtly. However, they cannot seem to find where it holds that “the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Perhaps it is obscured by a penumbra.
Regardless, our conversation needs to address the tens of millions of Americans who bitterly cling to this right. Perhaps it should focus on just how the
liberals propose to conduct this disarmament. They should probably start with who they assume would conduct this task. I highly suspect the
advocates of turning government force upon its own citizens to deprive them of what they consider a fundamental right do not envision themselves
strapping on body armor and locking and loading to go kick down the doors of people known to have guns.
So, since risking enormous violence as a consequence to turning government force on millions of armed American citizens who would believe their
fundamental rights were being tyrannically breached is probably a non-starter, we should converse about reality. Liberals love reality, or so they are
The reality is that guns aren’t going anywhere. There are 300 million of them. We aren’t giving them up. So let’s deal with the world as it is.
First, let’s talk about some common ground. It was not news to anyone that the creep in Newtown had mental problems. I am not discounting his evil,
but the fact is he clearly had mental issues. Can we agree that we need to look carefully at whether society can do a better job dealing with people like
this before they crack up? Doesn’t it make sense to deal with people who might be a threat instead of depriving millions of innocent, law-abiding
Americans of their rights?
Let’s return to the fact that we have nowhere near enough guns on the streets. In many states, concealed carry laws have been changed to allow
citizens the ability to defend themselves nearly everywhere. The bloodbath liberals expected never materialized. Instead, crime fell. It turns out that
ordinary American citizens don’t turn into to sociopaths in the presence of a Glock 19.
Let’s talk about how all American citizens should share this right, because many don’t. In California, I need my local sheriff to sign off that I’m
competent. I served 25 years in the military with two tours in hostile fire zones. I carried weapons in uniform deployed to fires, earthquakes and riots. I
oversaw the weapons training of thousands of soldiers. The government even spent tens of thousands investigating me, and then gave me a security
California considers me unfit to carry a gun outside my home. This is ridiculous.
Since we are conversing about guns, let me share some gun insights since liberals often don’t know anything about them (Memo to the Media: Please
learn what an “automatic” weapon is and isn’t. Please.) First, I don’t like carrying guns. I’ve spent several years of my life carrying guns and I don’t
enjoy it. They are heavy and dirty and you are always aware you have it and you must behave accordingly. Guns are a pain. I would only carry one
because the pain of watching people butchered while I looked on helplessly is immeasurably worse.
Let’s also talk about this assumption that a citizen with a handgun out in public is no match for a creep in a vest with a long weapon. True, I’d rather
have a long weapon myself, but I’m pretty sure that as I try to make a head shot his full attention (and his gun fire) are all going to be focused on me
instead of on some kid. I doubt anyone with a concealed carry permit wants to get shot, but while it may not be in tune with the tenor of these selfish
times, I’d prefer that if someone had to get shot it be me facing the enemy instead of a civilian shot in the back.
Let’s talk about “gun free zones” too. Liberals love talking about “science” and “logic,” yet their magical thinking when it comes to guns is staggering.
Let’s call “gun free zones” what they are – killing zones.
You don’t see mass shootings at gun shows, police stations or NRA conventions. Bad people go where they know there are defenseless victims. “Gun
free” means that the innocents are defense free. A soldier in a sister unit to mine years ago was killed at Ft. Hood, where personal weapons are banned
and military ones are in safes. He was shot while trying to attack the traitor with a chair.
Let’s talk about allowing some personnel at schools to be armed – and simply dismissing the idea with the declaration that it its “absurd” is insufficient.
Israel arms some teachers – let’s look at their example. There are bad people out there. You can’t wish them away.
And let me end this brief conversation with a question: Is there anyone who doesn’t wish someone else at Sandy Hook had a gun?
|Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying so many bullets?
Published February 14, 2013 Associated Press
Online rumors about a big government munitions purchase are true, sort of.
The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them --
roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States -- for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.
Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall. That's when conservative radio host Alex Jones spoke
of an "arms race against the American people" and said the government was "gearing up for total collapse, they're gearing up for huge wars."
The government's explanation is much less sinister.
Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says
Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga . The training center and others like it run by the Homeland
Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.
Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training
facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department's umbrella.
The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and
officers used the department's training center last year.
The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government's second
largest criminal investigative agency.
ICE's ammunition requests in the last year included:
--450 million rounds of .40-caliber duty ammunition
--40 million rounds of rifle ammunition a year for as many as five years, for a total bullet-buy of 200 million rounds
--176,000 rifle rounds on a separate contract
--25,000 blank rounds
The Homeland Security ammo buy is not the first time the government's bullets purchases have sparked concerns on the Internet. The same thing
happened last year when the Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was buying 174,000 hollow point bullets.
Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency's assistant inspector general for external relations, said those bullets were for the Social Security inspector general's
office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.
Jones the talk-show host did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
|Think For Yourself. Don't Be A Puppet.
Dr. Benjamen Carson
Fox Channel - Feb. 24, 2013
|"A pen in the hand of
this President is far
more dangerous than a
gun in the hands of 200
|Quote of the day.
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms"
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to
high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close.
When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One.
There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara
Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on
'Macbeth'. The four of them are like
jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should
condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
-- Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times
Veterans receiving letters prohibiting the purchase, possession, receipt, or transport of a
Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government
says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs?
Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly
be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated:
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition.
If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,
Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world.
Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me.
It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.
In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I
am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.
In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually
requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent.
This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to
fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people.
Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now
according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their
own Constitutional rights denied.
There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a
diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat.
In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have
suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms.
It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of
their rights have no idea why it is happening.
The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans.
At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the
criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.
The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway.
He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means
we have to ask who will be next.
If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters?
Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership.
It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration.
It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.
-- Michael Connelly, J.D.
Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation
Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter
|Those who make peaceful revolution impossible Will make violent
John F. Kennedy
|THE KEY TO A FREE NATION IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
IF IT GOES WAVE GOOD-BY TO THE REST. CORRUPTION
RESTS IN THE BRANCHES OF TREES WAITING TO PICK THE
BONES OF THE CONSTITUTION
“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the
killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
U. S. Marine Gen. James Mattis
|The Architect of Destruction
By P. Maureen Scott
"Obama comes from a community organizer background where it's us against them. But that's not who we are. And that's not the position the leader of
our Nation should take." Dr. Benjamin Carson
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the
most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he
grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That was instilled in him by his family and mentors. It seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where
there should be abiding pride and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. Or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our
sufferings and our blessings?
Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when
he hears a beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful?"
Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared
the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by?
It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values.
He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped
through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the
opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.
Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in
kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks
exploded over head, or placing flags on the gravesites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic
emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by
those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that
inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many.
Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition
for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who oppose
his policies and actions.
A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a
cocky, haughty attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissention, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was
presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He is anything but.
He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on
edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security.
He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the
standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward
becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride
established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and
assert a dictatorial form of power.
* Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.
* Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a
soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
* Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people on a daily basis!
Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us
up. He is the Architect of the decline of America, and the epitome of a Demagogue.
P. Maureen Scott
P. Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. A Journalist and Documentary
writer when retirement freed her from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please
herself and express her convictions.
The accomplishment of which she is most proud is her volunteer work with soldiers and their families at the Ft. Lee Army Base near Richmond.
Our Pledge of Allegiance, a military band playing the National Anthem, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, inspire her passion and views. Her life
is guided by a firm belief that truth is the most important virtue. She is a regular contributor to
The Richmond Times-Dispatch. April 11, 2013
|"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government." -- George Washington
|"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
|"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government
take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian."
|OUTDOOR CHANNEL PULLS PRODUCTION FROM COLORADO DUE TO CO SENATE
BETRAYING 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
From: Michael Bane
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado
To: Steve King
Dear Senator King;
I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I
currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus
on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors.
This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production
OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the
right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens
into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here.
I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got
two others. All three attorneys agreed.
We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013.
Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do
exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major
network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be
based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact.
Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost
$800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting
producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are
pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly.
The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a
fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach
millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is
already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can
assure you those ads will fail.
We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a
disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly cities like Grand
This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters,
hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That
venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as
all vendors and sponsors pulled out.
Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support.
OUTDOOR CHANNEL firstname.lastname@example.org
|Boston bombing suspect’s family reportedly received $100G from taxpayers
Published April 30, 2013 FoxNews.com
The accused Boston Marathon bombers' family pulled in more than $100,000 in welfare up until 2012, The Boston Herald reported.
The benefits included food stamps, Section 8 housing and stipends, the report said. One person with knowledge of the documents that will be handed
over to the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee told the paper, "the breadth of the benefits the family was receiving was stunning."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/30/boston-bombing-suspects-family-reportedly-received-100g-from-taxpayers/#ixzz2RzSEQk8f
Special forces could've responded to Benghazi attack, whistle-blower tells Fox News
By Adam Housley Published April 30, 2013 FoxNews.com
A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had
highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing in a Fox News Channel interview with his face and voice disguised, the special operator
contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have
intervened in the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, an embassy employee and two former Navy SEALs working as
private security contractors were killed.
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the operator told Fox
News' Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”
The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force capable of rapid response and deployment specifically trained for incidents like last year’s attack in Benghazi.
During the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya, the C-110
were training in Croatia, just 3 ½ hours away.
“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my
opinion, in a matter of about four hours…four to six hours.”
Being so close, C-110s would have been able to respond had there been a second attack, the source added.
“They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that can facilitate their exfil out of the, out of the problem situation.
Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear people and a whole bunch of advisers say, 'We wouldn’t have sent them because the security
was a unknown situation.'”
The source says the government could have at least sent the C-110s there as backup.
“If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum, you send forces there to facilitate the exfil, or, or, um medical injuries,” he said. “We could have sent a C-30
to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.”
The source says many people connected to the Benghazi bombing feel threatened and are afraid to talk.
“The problem is, you got guys in my position, you got guys in special operations community who are still active and still involved,” the source said.
“And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that would affect high level commanders,” he said.
Despite the concern, the source who spoke to Fox News says there’s a feeling of betrayal in the community that the government left people on the
ground in Benghazi to fend for themselves.
“You know, it’s something that’s risky, especially in our line of profession, to say anything about, anything in the realm of politics, or that deals with
policy,” the source said.
In December, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen told lawmakers the U.S. did not have personnel close enough to have
responded to the siege at the consulate, even though the State Department had been repeatedly warned by embassy staffers concerned about security
“It is not reasonable, nor feasible, to tether U.S. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world,” Mullen said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/30/special-ops-benghazi-whistleblower-tells-fox-news-government-could-have/#ixzz2RzUgudIM
US Hired al-Qaida-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission
Friday, 03 May 2013 12:12 PM By John Rosenthal
The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had
prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page some months before the deadly attack.
That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.
The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone
Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.
Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for
the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs
Brigade was hired to protect the mission.
On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that
“the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military
The report also stated that just a few days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the Martyrs Brigade informed State Department officials they no longer
would provide security as members of the mission, including Stevens, traveled through the city.
From June 2011 to July 2012, Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for Libya at the time, documented more than 200 security threats and violent
incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occurred in Benghazi.
Yet despite those threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department, for reasons that remain
Perhaps the biggest question is why the State Department would hire a group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaida, and ask it to participate
in the defense of its diplomatic mission.
The banner, or “cover photo” of one of the group’s Facebook pages, shows an Islamic fighter, or mujahid, with a portable rocket launcher resting on his
The distinctive black flag of al-Qaida can be seen fluttering to the man’s right, attached to the vehicle in which he is riding. The mujahid wears a
headband based on the design of the al-Qaida flag. The flag in question features the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, and a white circle that is
sometimes described as the “seal of Mohammed.”
The flag was made famous by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Iraqi al-Qaida affiliate, commonly known as “al-Qaida in Iraq.” The flag originally used by
al-Qaida was a plain black flag with the shahada written on it in white. Both flags are widely used by contemporary jihadist groups.
(Photo 1) The original cover photo on Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, displaying the al-Qaida banner.
An Arabic inscription written over the photo reads: “Allah, his prophet and Libya and that’s it.” The cover photo was posted by the site administrator on
June 10, 2012., and was the first activity on the Facebook page.
The photo was presumably taken at a massive rally in support of the sharia, or Islamic law, held in Benghazi three days earlier, on June 7. The rally
included a military parade featuring units from a large cross-section of the Eastern Libyan militias that spearheaded the 2011 rebellion against Moammar
Video of the event posted by local sources shows several al-Qaida flags flying at the event. Al-Qaida-inspired accessories, such as headbands and
decals, were widely displayed as well. One of the sponsoring organizations of the rally was Ansar al-Sharia. The term Ansar al-Sharia means
“supporters of the sharia.” Sharia is Islamic law and regulations.
On June 15, five days after the photo was posted, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade updated the cover photo on the Facebook page, replacing the
image with a photo montage featuring its own logo and a masked commando sporting the colors of the new Libyan national flag on a shoulder patch.
The cover photo has been updated several times since then. It is clear, however, that the group has repudiated neither al-Qaida nor its violent ideology.
On June 28, for example, the brigade posted a second graphic bearing a headline title that translates to: “The bearded [man] is suspect until he proves
he is not a Muslim!!!”
The graphic features two rows of pictures. The top row consists of bearded Muslim men. The images include some of the leading figures of modern-day
jihadism, including al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden and the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The Arabic text on the graphic states the Muslims are accused of various faults, including “terrorism” and “extremism.”
The second row shows bearded non-Muslims (including Tolstoy, Che Guevara and George Bernard Shaw). The caption suggests the Western world
sees the bearded non-Muslims as intelligent, and holds them in high esteem.
To drive home the point, the graphic includes a quotation from the Quran: “Then will we treat Muslims like criminals? What is the matter with you? How
do you judge?”
The implication is that the Muslims in the top row, including Osama bin Laden, have been unfairly labeled.
(Photo 2) Graphic from Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
Several entries on the Facebook page make clear the brigade’s sympathies for the Ansar al-Sharia militia, which allegedly has al-Qaida ties. In the
Western media, Ansar al-Sharia has been widely accused of having perpetrated the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.
An entry posted Sept. 19, eight days after the Benghazi attacks, laments the death of an Ansar al-Sharia member. It asks God to “receive him amongst
the martyrs” and to receive him “into his wide paradise.” The entry points out that the deceased, Adham al-Falastini, previously was a member of the
February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
Another revealing earlier post, on June 25, shows a graphic from a now-defunct Ansar al-Sharia Facebook page. It carries a warning from Ansar al-Sharia
about the distribution of pens bearing an image of the Virgin Mary. The graphic cautions against propagating beliefs that Muslims should scorn
( Photo 3) A warning from Ansar al-Sharia about “Virgin Mary pens.” Graphic reproduced on a Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
At least two recent entries on the February 17th Martyrs Brigade site feature the Ansar al-Sharia logo. One of these, dated Jan. 29, suggests that Ansar
al-Sharia is the target of a “treacherous” plot to get the brigade blamed for various attacks and assassination attempts.
The other, dated Jan. 20, announces that Ansar al-Sharia has begun guarding the western gate of Benghazi “in the service of our religion and…of the
( Photo 4 )_Ansar al-Sharia logo on Facebook page of February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
This news, which is corroborated by other sources, is notable in light of Western news reports claiming Ansar al-Sharia was driven out of the city
following the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission.
A more recent entry, March 2, features a graphic celebrating Jabhat al-Nusra, the offshoot of al-Qaida in Iraq that has played a leading role in the Syrian
insurrection against the rule of Bashar al-Assad.
Late last year, Jabhat al-Nusra was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
In defiance of the U.S. designation, the Arabic on the graphic declares, “We are all Jabhat al-Nusra.”
The accompanying Facebook entry repeats this sentiment, and recites the exploits of the al-Qaida-linked brigade in the Syrian civil war, including “more
than 40 martyrdom operations.” Jihadist groups use “martyrdom operations” to refer to suicide bombings
( Photo 5 ) “We are all Jabhat al-Nusra.” Graphic from a Facebook page of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
The State Department had hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security at the
U.S. mission in Benghazi. A document recovered from the mission two days after the attack
indicated the State Department had arranged for the Martyrs Brigade to act as a
“Quick Reaction Force” to protect the mission.
The Memorandum of Agreement states that “in the event of an attack on the U.S. mission, QRF will request additional support from the 17th February
Throughout the summer leading up to the attack, embassy officials repeatedly asked the State Department for additional security. But the State
Department actually reduced security, pulling out a military detachment responsible for defending diplomats in Libya.
One reason the requests for additional security may have been denied: They did not fit into the administration narrative that al-Qaida elements no
longer posed a threat to U.S. interests.
One diplomatic cable to the mission indicated that the U.S.-based deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security was “reluctant to ask for [additional
security] apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets
to protect our mission.”
When the mission’s regional safety officer expressed an interest in July 2012 asking State Department official to permit the military security team to
continue to protect the mission, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary in charge of diplomatic security, sent an e-mail that responded:
“NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the [military security] team to stay!”
Republicans have complained in recent weeks that the Obama administration has been stonewalling their investigation. According to Fox News, four
career officials at the State Department and the CIA have retained counsel as they prepare to provide Congress with inside information on the attacks.
"Victoria Toensing, an attorney representing one of the whistleblowers, said they have been threatened by CIA and State Department officials with
repercussions if they talk to Congress about what happened in Benghazi. But President Obama said earlier this week he was “unaware” of anyone
being discouraged from coming forward to tell Congress their side of the story.
" House Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued a statement on Tuesday: “Over the past two weeks, I have sent
four letters requesting that this administration make information available about how lawyers — who already have security clearances and are
representing Benghazi whistleblowers — can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any responses from the Obama
The House Republicans’ Interim Progress Report concludes with an ominous warning: “This singular event will be repeated unless the United States
recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world, and properly postures resources and security assets to counter and respond to those
“Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect more catastrophes like Benghazi, in which U.S. personnel on the
ground perform bravely, but are not provided with the resources for an effective response,” the report stated.
Newsmax Senior Editor David A. Patten contributed to this report.
John Rosenthal is a European-based journalist who writes on EU politics and transatlantic security issues. His new book is The Jihadist Plot: The Untold
Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion. Translations from Arabic provided by Maureen Millington-Brodie.
|As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago gun ban, this Marine offered a letter that places the proper perspective on what a
gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
Reason and Force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or Force
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical
as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing
with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed]
mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat.
It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a
bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger
If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It
simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't
limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
This is worth remembering!
|Testimony Of U.S. Diplomat Revealed Ahead Of His Appearance In New Benghazi Hearing.
Published May 05, 2013 FoxNews.com
A top State Department official scheduled to give congressional testimony this week on the fatal attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, says he
knew immediately they were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.
“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get go,” says Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the number two U.S. official in Libya at
the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”
Hicks is one of two self-described State Department “whistle-blowers” scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Republican-led House Oversight and
Government Affairs Committee. The other is Mark Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s
The third witness, Eric Nordstrom, an agency diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, has already testified before
Their testimony also comes amid recent concerns that the State Department is perhaps intimidating officials who know about the attacks and want to
Hicks is highly critical of the Obama administration’s explanation in the immediate aftermath of the attacks -- that the strikes were sparked by earlier
protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video.
The attacks killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” says Hicks, according to the
transcript provided by the committee. “And secondly, if he had reported it, he would have been out the back door within minutes of any demonstration
appearing anywhere near that facility. And there was a back gate to the facility, and, you know, it worked. … Chris' last report, if you want to say his
final report, is, "Greg, we are under attack."
He also expresses frustration about why U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on all the major Sunday talk shows five days after
the attacks and said they were sparked by protest and not premeditated, as Libya President Magarief was saying otherwise.
“I reported an attack on the consulate,” Hicks says in the transcripts. “It's jaw dropping that to me how that came to be. … I was personally known to one
of Ambassador Rice's staff members. And, you know, we're six hours ahead of Washington. Even on Sunday morning I could have been called.”
The transcripts were released by House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa during an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"We know one thing, the talking points were right, and then the talking points were wrong," said Issa, R-Calif. "The CIA knew it was a terrorist attack, the
deputy chief of mission, Gregory Hicks, knew it was a terrorist attack, the ambassador before he died, one of the last words he ever said is, ''We`re
The release of the transcript follows committee member Rep. Jason Chaffetz's suggestion that potential witnesses to the attacks are being intimidated
by the State Department; but they will come forward after the whistle-blowers testify.
“I think these people are afraid of retaliation, afraid of what the State Department will do to them,” Chaffetz, R-Utah, told “Fox News Sunday.”
“Others are out there and will testify.”
He also said, "There are people -- more than one -- that have felt intimidation from the State Department."
President Obama and the State Department have denied knowledge of such actions.
“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked,” the president said last week.
Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Steve Lynch told Fox on Sunday that independent investigators interviewed more than 100 witnesses and determined
“no breach of duty” during the attacks.
Lynch, also a member of the House oversight committee, defended House Democrats on the issue, saying the Republican-led chamber calls the
hearings and picks witnesses.
“We don’t have the ability to hold a hearing,” he said.