-->
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan




Showing posts with label WK05. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WK05. Show all posts

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Jeannie DeAngelis - 'Dangerous Hairdryers’ and Self-protective Cutting Shears

Originally posted at American Thinker
Last year, with the authorization of Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice, after thousands of “Fast and Furious” assault rifles wreaked mayhem on both the U.S. border and inside Mexico, the Obama administration commissioned Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano to do whatever was necessary to help save American lives.

Soon thereafter, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, overseen by Secretary Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security, seized 13,000 “unsafe hair dryers” from blowing their way across the border.

Apparently, Mexican drug cartels entering the U.S. to buy illegal guns and Al Qaeda operatives infiltrating American soil are not the problem. But hairdryers that “fail to have adequate immersion protection” — now that is a huge problem.

Fully aware that nervous citizens were grappling with hairdryer immersion concerns, the DHS reassured the public that ”The potentially dangerous hair dryers were identified through a nationwide targeting operation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CTAC).”

Well-coifed Americans breathed a collective sigh of relief. Thankfully, the government made sure that if one should decide to dry their hair in the bathtub, thanks to the efforts of attentive border agents there’s a good chance they won’t be electrocuted.

Now, a year later, after pulling the plug on a successful “dangerous hairdryer” crusade, Ms. Napolitano and company have embarked on a new venture: offering advice on how to stay alive if one is fortunate enough to have a job and a demented gunslinger decides to vent his anger in the workplace.

In an effort to save lives, the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that still hasn’t confiscated all the guns that were purposely walked across the border into Mexico, posted a government-produced video entitled “Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video.”

Excuse me, but that title just cries out for a DHS-style acronym, and is almost as ridiculous as the infamous DHS “man caused disaster” definition that the organization came up with for terrorism.

When overseeing the content of the video, Big Sis must have felt it was necessary for the narrator to explain to grown adults that an “active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people inside an occupied structure or outside in a populated area.” What Janet forgot to mention was that “active shooters” attempt to kill people with guns.

Naturally, because the government objects to honest Americans citizens being armed and able to defend themselves, the DHS was forced to get creative when suggesting lifesaving options that should have also included: When making a business call, instead of looking for the donuts and coffee or scoping out the location of the bathroom, be on the lookout for an escape route and never sit with your back to the door.

On behalf of Barack Obama’s December 2012 “Critical Infrastructure Protection and Resilience” initiative, the deliberate tone of the narrator also suggests intuitive things like scurrying under a desk or conference room table; shutting off lights; closing blinds; trying not to sneeze or cough; and cell phone deactivation. The video also suggests locking and/or barricading oneself in an office; running for the stairwell; stepping over dead coworkers; and putting your hands in the air with fingers spread apart while passing the SWAT team on the way out of the building under siege.

According to the video, for lack of a legal firearm or a place to hide, victims have a better chance of survival if they attempt to “overpower the shooter with whatever means are available.”

DHS forgot to mention that Office Retaliation Options, or OROs, could also include even more creative defensive measures such as: Jamming chewing gum into the barrel of the gun; stapling the shooter’s feet to the floor; bludgeoning the aggressor with a fire extinguisher; asphyxiating the assailant with a baseball-size wad of Post-Its; using a letter opener as a stabbing implement; or better yet, slicing an assailant to ribbons with the pair of scissors depicted in the video being pulled from a disorganized desk drawer by a quick-thinking office worker under fire.

A word of caution for jujutsu experts defending themselves for the first time with office-supply-quality cutting shears: Just make sure the blades are not in the gunman’s jugular with your hand still on the handles. Why? Because the video advises that when the cops arrive those wielding sharp objects must “Put down any items [and] immediately raise [their] hands,” lest they survive the gunman but lose their lives to an overenthusiastic first responder.

In the end, between Ms. Napolitano’s successful “dangerous hairdryer” endeavor last year and the lifesaving instructions for using scissors against an angry, gun-wielding former coworker on a rampage this year, the Department of Homeland Security’s information campaign is destined to save lives.

In the meantime, in the near future a taxpayer-funded “Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video Part. II” may be warranted to address a situation where a gunman attacks, oh, let’s say a beauty parlor. In that case, someone will need to provide step-by-step self-defense “options” for a hair stylist with only a “dangerous hairdryer” handy and no assault scissors within reach.


Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Lynching Black Rifles

Wild Bill exposes the racism behind the liberal's gun grabbing hysteria.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Katelyn Francis - 13 Year Old Prodigy

From Katelyn's Facebook page

My video from the Fallen Brethren 3 Gun in TX has been shared over 23,000 times!!! Thanks for that. There have been a lot of questions and guessing going on and i want to clear some it up. I am from MO, not TX. Although my dad did grow up in TX. I am 13 years old.

This video was from a competition. I am not training for zombies, CIA, navy seal, etc....although I am keeping my future options open!!!

The rifle is a full auto ACR. It was a stage gun. YES.....full auto is legal if you pay the proper fees in America.

My shotgun is a 12GA benelli M2 and no it doesnt knock me on my butt.
The pistol is a S&W M&P 9mm PRO and yes I did miss two shots at the end....sorry. For those of you who say I need to find cover and try doing it with people shooting back......I am 13 and this is a competition.

For those (few) of you who think I should be playing with barbies instead of guns and who think this type of sport will make me a bad person. I play on several sports teams at my school. I also make straight A's. I am a girly girl (notice the finger nail polish). I have been shooting since I was 5 and do not play video games. Not that I dont like them, I would rather shoot real guns than fake ones. i have never had any professional training except from my dad and a couple of his buddies. thanks for watching my videos and hope to see you on the range!


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

NRA News Report: Media Misinformation - Mother Jones

According to a United States Department of Justice report (www.fbi.gov):
----------------------------
38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.

1 of every 5 homes will experience a break in or home invasion. That's over 2,000,000 homes!

According to Statistics U.S.A., there was an average of 3,600,000 home invasions annually between 1994 and 2000.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Massad Ayoob - Why Good People Need SemiAutomatic Firearms and “High Capacity” Magazines

Within roughly the same timeframe as the Newtown Atrocity, a criminal armed with a crowbar broke into the home of a young mother who was there alone with her nine-year-old twins. When she and the kids had retreated as far as they could and the intruder still kept coming, she opened fire with a .38 caliber revolver.

When her gun went empty, five of the six shots had struck the intruder. Whether it’s drunkenness, drugs, or desperation, some violent criminals can be harder than others. In this case, the intruder was still up and running. The smart and courageous young mom bluffed him at the point of her now-empty six-shooter, telling him in essence that she would finish him off if he kept attacking.

The bluff worked. He fled, running out of steam later, though he is still alive to face criminal charges.

Anyone who is not blind from rabid anti-gun sentiment can see that this would not have ended well for the mom OR her young twins if the suspect had been just a little tougher and more resolved…or if he’d had an accomplice.

American Rifleman, the monthly magazine of the National Rifle Association, carries a regular column titled The Armed Citizen. It documents cases of good people using guns to protect themselves and other innocents from bad people. This continuing feature has run for decades, so old that one of my grandfather’s self-defense incidents is in its archives.

The Armed Citizen section in the current issue of the Rifleman, warrants our interest. Bear in mind that a real life self-defense shooting is not a “Dirty Harry” cinematic fantasy in which every shot fired will both strike, and instantly blow away, a bad guy. Real life is more like a zombie movie: if the first bullet doesn’t short-circuit the central nervous system, you have to keep shooting until the skeletal support structure no longer holds him (and his weapon) up where he can hurt you and yours, or until his cardiovascular system has run out of oxygenated blood for his brain. The latter mechanism’s effect can often be better measured in minutes than in moments.

Traditionally limited to a single page, the Armed Citizens column in the February 2013 issue contains seven incidents “torn from the headlines” as the dramatists like to say, all documented by the local news media where the incidents took place.

In EACH of those incidents, only ONE of the intended victims was armed and capable of fighting back.

A mere two of those seven documented incidents were “one on one” confrontations. In each the Good Guys were actually Good Gals: A 35-year-old woman in New Mexico and Jill Stucker, 64, of Florida had to deal with only a single attacker apiece.

Three of the people saved by their guns were up against two-to-one odds: An unidentified farmer in West Virginia, store owner Roger Webster of Maryland, and an 83-year-old lady with a “walker” in Tennessee.

And two of the seven documented cases – A 35-year-old woman in the New Orleans area and a Pennsylvania man – were each up against a gang of at least FOUR home invaders.

In a world where the Good People With Guns often have to deliver several hits to neutralize even one Bad Person With Deadly Weapons, and in which there is often more than one attacker, anyone applying logical thinking can only end up shouting one three-word
mantra: DO THE MATH!!


Massad Ayoob

Massad F. Ayoob is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor.
Massad Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns.
Massad Ayoob was former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.

http://massadayoobgroup.com/

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PJTV Trifecta - $180 Billion Wasted: Head Start Education Program Has No Lasting Impact

For 48 years, liberals have used the Head Start education program for low income kids as the shining example of how the federal government can make a difference to the lives of people. But a new study suggests otherwise. So why keep spending $8 Billion a Year on an ineffective program? Hear what Trifecta thinks.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Bill Whittle - What Difference Does It Make?

Hillary Clinton asked "what difference does it make?" in response to questions about the murder of a US Ambassador in Benghazi. Bill Whittle lets you know what difference it makes for our country. From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State John Kerry hear what Bill Whittle thinks.

"So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
President Barack Obama
Cairo Speech
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Malkin - Unions Want OUT of Obamacare!

Now that ObamaCare is actually happening, labor unions who made a big push for the legislation three years ago are no longer rallying behind it. Unions are seeing healthcare promises made by President Obama broken left and right in the form of higher costs, more bureaucracy, loss of doctors Obama promised they could keep, slashing of healthcare benefits and more.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

DHS - Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video

Options for Consideration demonstrates possible actions to take if confronted with a active shooter scenario. The instructive video reviews the choices of evacuating, hiding, or, as an option of last resort, challenging the shooter. The video also shows how to assist authorities once law enforcement enters the scene.

The DHS suggests that if a 'Madman' armed with an AR-15 Weapon enters your workplace and begins killing people - you might consider stopping the 'Mass' Murderer with a pair of scissors.

A law abiding Armed Citizen is NOT even considered or mentioned, instead the DHS recommends a suicide mission.

DHS’s recommended responses to such shootings, demonstrated in a generic office setting, include the obvious instructions to try to either evacuate the area, or hide someplace the shooter won’t think to look, while also warning innocent bystanders in such situations that it is necessary to follow the instructions of police officers and other law enforcement personnel who appear on the scene.



"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
Thomas Jefferson

Celia Bigelow vs. Zerlina Maxwell Debate DHS Video Lesson
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Michael Brown - Super Bowl or Gay Equality Bowl

Is it too much to ask that the focus of this Sunday be on football and not on “gay rights”? Will I be branded as a homophobic bigot for daring to make such a request? (I can answer that already: Yes!)

Last week, Fox News ran the headline, “Baltimore Raven linebacker [Brendon Ayanbadejo] uses Super Bowl spotlight to promote gay marriage,” reporting that, “Hours after Ayanbadejo’s team beat the New England Patriots on Sunday, paving their way to football’s biggest game, the three-time Pro Bowl special teams player wrote an email to gay marriage proponents asking how he could use his time in the limelight support the cause.”

In his email he asked, “Is there anything I can do for marriage equality or anti-bullying over the next couple of weeks to harness this Super Bowl media?”

Earlier in 2012, his outspoken support of same-sex “marriage” brought a compassionate and carefully worded response from teammate Matt Birk, a six-time Pro Bowl center and “a Harvard-educated Catholic and the married father of six children.” In an editorial published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Birk wrote that “we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction,” but he gave clear reasons why marriage could only be the union of a man and a woman, also pointing out how “no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution.”

But that was October, 2012, and Birk was not planning to use the platform of the Super Bowl to campaign against redefining marriage. In contrast, Ayanbadejo stated that his “ultimate goal after the Super Bowl” was “To go on Ellen’s show, to be dancing with her, to bust a move with her.” (According to reports, the Ellen DeGeneres show has already reached out to him via Twitter to see about his appearing on her show next month.)

On Tuesday of this week, San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver expressed his views on gay players in the NFL during a one-minute, recorded interview with comedian Artie Lange, saying, “I don’t do the gay guys, man. I don’t do that. Ain’t got no gay people on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can’t be with that sweet stuff.” And Culliver made clear that he would not welcome a gay teammate, explaining, “Nah. Can’t be ... in the locker room, nah. You’ve gotta come out 10 years later after that.” (Has anyone explained how or why the topic actually came up during the interview?)

The 49ers are, of course, based in San Francisco, and so it was no surprise that two days later, Culliver offered a contrite apology, explaining that “that’s not what I feel in my heart” (really?) and adding, “I’m sorry if I offended anyone. They were very ugly comments. Hopefully I learn and grow from this experience and this situation.”

Jim Harbaugh, the coach of the 49ers, was quick to renounce Culliver’s initial comments, stating, “I reject what he said. That’s not something that reflects the way the organization feels, the way the rest of the players feel.” (It should also be noted that the NFL already has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.) And Culliver wanted to add that he loves San Francisco, with obvious reference to its large, openly gay population.

And even though Brendon Ayanbadejo wanted to focus on the Super Bowl as he met with the media this week, since gay issues were now back in the Super Bowl news, he stated that, “Hopefully I’ll be able to win a Super Bowl and do the entire media circuit so I can talk about these things.” (For the record, he and Birk have reportedly become closer friends as a result of expressing their differences.)

What are we to make of this? On the one hand, even though I passionately differ with Ayanbadejo, he can be commended for his zeal and devotion – after all, to him this is a matter of fairness and equality – but now is the time to focus on football, not on social issues. Win or loss, he’ll have plenty of media opportunities in the future.

As for Culliver, his “sweet stuff” comments are regrettable and his timing was awful, but is it so wrong for an athlete to say that he wouldn’t be at home with openly gay teammates? I’ve heard firsthand from a number of straight female softball players who were very uncomfortable with the strong lesbian presence on their teams – they have reported being pressured personally by their lesbian teammates – to the point that some have quit playing entirely. And since a professional football team develops deep personal bonds between the teammates, is it wrong to think that, at times, two straight men might relate differently than a straight man and a gay man, or that they might feel differently about standing around naked in the locker room? (Call it homophobic if you will; I call it perfectly understandable.)

But the real issue is this: In the week before the Super Bowl, the focus should be on the game and on the team, not on same-sex “marriage” (really, what in the world does this have to do with the game?) and not on whether a player would be at home with a gay teammate (how in the world is that relevant?).

Is it really too much to ask that, just for one week, we can enjoy a game without being drawn into the debate about homosexuality?


Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Daniel Greenfield - Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control

Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog

The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli.

You wouldn't blame a dog for overeating; you blame the owners for overfeeding him. Nor do you blame a dog for biting a neighbor. You might punish him, but the punishment is training, not a recognition of authentic responsibility on the part of the canine. And the way that you think of a dog, is the way that the left thinks of you. When you misbehave, the left looks around for your owner.

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.

Individual behavior is a symptom of a social problem. Identify the social problem and you fix the behavior. The individual is nothing, the crowd is everything. Control the mass and you control the individual.

That is how the left approached this election. Instead of appealing to individual interests, they went after identity groups. They targeted low information voters and used behavioral science to find ways to manipulate people. The right treated voters like human beings. The left treated them like lab monkeys. And the lab monkey approach is triumphantly toted by progressives as proof that the left is more intelligent than the right. And what better proof of intelligence can there be than treating half the country like buttons of unthinking responses that you can push to get them to do what you want.

Would you let a lab monkey own a gun? Hell no. Would you let it choose what to eat? Only as an experiment. Would you let it vote for laws in a referendum? Not unless it's trained to push the right button. Would you let it drive a car? Nope. Maybe a bicycle. And if it has to travel a long way, you'll encourage it to use mass transit. Does a monkey have freedom of speech? Only until it annoys you.

You'll take away most of the monkey's bananas, which you're too lazy to go and find for yourself because you have more important things to do than fetch bananas. You train monkeys to fetch bananas for you. That is how the enlightened elites of the left see the workers whose taxes they harvest; as monkeys that they taught in their schools and created jobs for with their stimulus plans for. And the least that the monkeys could do is pay their taxes, because the monkeys didn’t build that. You did.

You do plan to take care of monkey's medical expenses, at least until they get too high, and spay and neuter it with free birth control. You will train it to be the smartest and most well-behaved monkey it can be. And when it gets too sick, you plan to have it mercifully put down so it doesn't hang around spreading diseases and depressing you with its misery.

And what's wrong with any of that? Human beings are just evolved monkeys. It's not as if you're being cruel to the monkey. You're engaged in what you might charitably think of as a symbiotic relationship with the monkey. If the monkey were smart, it might think of you as a parasite. But you have a whole lot of rounds of ammunition stockpiled in case of a Planet of the Apes scenario.

If you assume that there is as much of a substantive difference between the elite and the common man as there is between a man and a monkey, there is nothing particularly inappropriate about such behavior. We herd animals. Liberals herd people. The human being is the livestock of the liberal animal farm.

The Nazis believed that they were the master race because they were genetically superior. Liberals believe that they are the master race on account of their superior empathy and intelligence. There's an obvious paradox in believing that you have the right to enslave and kill people because you care more, but that didn't stop millions of people from joining in with revolutions that led to a century of bloodshed in the name of movements that cared more.

The defining American code is freedom. The defining liberal code is compassion. Conservatives have attempted to counter that by defining freedom as compassionate, as George W. Bush did. Liberals counter by attempting to define compassion as liberating, the way that FDR did by classing freedoms with entitlements in his Four Freedoms.

On one side stands the individual with his rights and responsibilities. On the other side is the remorseless state machinery of supreme compassion. And there is no bridging this gap.

Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a revolutionary pity that uses empathy only as fuel for outrage. It is the sort of compassion practiced by people who like to be angry and who like to pretend that their anger makes them better people. It is the sort of compassion that eats like poison into the bones of a man or a society, even while swelling their egos with their own wonderfulness.

Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading as outrage which in turn is dressed up as a deep love for others and empathy for all living creatures. Peel away the mask of compassion and all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power. And the only way to truly justify the kind of total power summoned by such lusts is by reducing the people you would rule over to the status of non-persons.

The clash that will define the future of America is this collision between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is accountability.

To understand the left's position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely reactive capacity. Then use that data to come up with a response to anything from kids getting fat to a football player shooting his wife to terrorists firing rockets at Israel. The only possible answer to reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.

If you want to fake being a member of the left on any topic and in any setting, master this simple phrase. "But we have to look at the root causes to see who is really responsible." Congratulations, you can now get by anywhere from Caracas to Brussels to Berkeley.

The root cause is a perpetual search for an accountability vested in systems rather than people. That search always ends up with systems and ideologies, rather than mere people, because it justifies the destruction of those systems and ideologies. And destroying systems and ideologies allows them to be replaced by their progressive replacements.

The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character. The right asks, "Why did you kill?" The left asks, "Who let him have a gun?", "Who didn't provide him with a job" and "Who neglected his self-esteem?"

Freedom goes hand in hand with personal moral organization of the individual by the individual. Organized compassion however requires the moral organization of the society as a whole. A shooting is not a failure of the character of one man alone, or even his family and social circle, it is the total failure of our entire society and perhaps even the world, for not leveraging a sufficient level of moral organization that would have made such a crime impossible. No man is an island. Every man is a traffic jam.

Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.

Choice is what makes us moral creatures and collective compassion leaves us less than human. The collective society of mass movements and mass decisions leaves us little better than lab monkeys trying to compose Shakespeare without understanding language, meaning or ideas, or anything more than the rote feel of our fingers hitting the keyboard.

This is the society that the left is creating, a place filled with as many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve you.


Daniel Greenfield

Visit Daniel's Blog Sultan Knish by clicking HERE

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. Daniel is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

Daniel's original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and his blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. Daniel has a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and his op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Daniel was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011 and his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Philips, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin, among others.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Ted Cruz - Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence

Senator Ted Cruz makes some very good arguments in favor of gun rights at the hearing on gun violence. The truth about how many guns purchased at Gun Shows actually find there way into criminal hands... and, what is the true relationship between gun control laws and gun crime?

January 30, 2013
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lindsey Graham - Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence

Lindsey Graham makes his position clear during the Hearing on Gun Violence. One bullet in the wrong hands is a disaster, but only six bullets for a mother protecting her children might not be enough.
January 30, 2013
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Emily Miller Discusses Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Guns

Emily Miller is the Senior Editor of the Washington Times Opinion pages, the first Washington Times journalist to be awarded the prestigious Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Journalism.

Cam Edwards talks to Emily Miller from The Washington Times about being at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "What Should America Do About Gun Violence?"


January 31, 2013
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Gayle Trotter at the the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence

At the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence, representing the Independent Women's Forum, Senior Fellow Gayle Trotter assets Second Amendment rights for women. The women's gun of choice, the AR15... the great equalizer.
January 30, 2013

Sarah McKinley Shoots Intruder
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Star Parker - America Needs a New Birth of Freedom

Journalist Bill Moyers, who worked as an assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, shared memories in a column last year about how his old boss thought about our entitlement programs.

It was under Johnson, who championed the "Great Society" in the 1960s, that a good portion of the runaway government spending we are trying to get under control today originated.

Johnson signed into law Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty programs, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Moyers recounted that for Johnson, Social Security and Medicare "were about a lot more than economics."

He recalls a time when the Johnson administration was supporting retroactive increases in Social Security payments. Moyers said he argued for the increases as economic stimulus. But Johnson called him and said:

"My inclination would be ... that it ought be retroactive as far back as you can get it ... because none of them ever get enough. That they are entitled to it. That's an obligation of ours. It's just like your mother writing you and saying she wants $20, and I always sent mine $100 when she did. I always did it because I thought she was entitled to it. ... We do know that it affects the economy. But that's not the basis to go to the Hill, or the justification. We've got to say that by God you can't treat grandma this way. She's entitled to it and we promised it to her."

I don't think we could have a clearer picture of Johnson's muddled thinking about his job and the role of government, which contributed so much to the problems we have today.

Johnson's words sound so wonderfully compassionate. But let's get things in perspective.

He saw no difference in his relationship and responsibilities toward his own mother, and sending her his own money, and his responsibilities as president of the United States and the relationship of government to citizens.

There is a world of difference between the appropriate responsibility of parents toward their children and children toward their parents, and politicians deciding on how to spend someone else's money for someone else's children, parents or grandparents.

Johnson didn't seem to grasp, or care, about the fact that family and government are two entirely different social institutions that serve very different purposes.

So the Johnson administration years marked not just the beginning of many huge government programs that we can't pay for today, but they also marked a major cultural change where government began displacing family and personal responsibility.

It is no accident that as the American welfare state grew, the American family collapsed.

In 1960, 72 percent of American adults were married. By 2010, this was down to 51 percent.

The change is most pronounced among two of today's largest Democratic Party constituencies: youths and blacks. In 1960, 45 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 were married compared to 9 percent today. In 1960, 61 percent of black adults were married, compared to 31 percent today.

Means testing, targeted tax increases on the wealthy, raising the retirement age -- all proposed ways to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid going as they are -- all simply grow the American welfare state, increase dependence of working Americans on government and other taxpayers, and displace family and traditional values with socialism.

This is why Democratic leaders are not stressed out by the entitlements crisis facing us. More socialism in America is what they want.

They are not bothered that slow growth and high unemployment go hand in hand with this socialism.

Republicans won't succeed as an opposition party if they keep tiptoeing around the fact that facing America today is a crisis of vision and values.

They need to stop selling the alternative to welfare as unpleasantness and spending cuts. They need to start selling that restored prosperity will only come with a rebirth of American freedom and the values that go with it.


Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Bill Whittle - Gun Rights

Bill examines to role of gun ownership as a bulwark against the power of the Big State, and deals with some of the logical problems of the gun control movement.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Hardness of Heart and the Celebration of Abortion

In 1995, feminist leader Naomi Wolf called for a pro-abortion movement “that acts with moral accountability and without euphemism,” noting that, “With the pro-choice rhetoric we use now, we incur three destructive consequences -- two ethical, one strategic: hardness of heart, lying and political failure.” That hardness of heart was fully manifest in the profane video produced by the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

But let’s go back to October 16, 1995, when the New Republic published Wolf’s remarkably candid article entitled, “Our Bodies, Our Souls.” Wolf made reference to “Dr. Joycelyn Elders’s remark, hailed by some as refreshingly frank and pro-woman but which I found remarkably brutal: that ‘We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus....’”

She explained that “Second Wave feminists reacted to the dehumanization of women by dehumanizing the creatures within them. . . . Yet that has left us with a bitter legacy. For when we defend abortion rights by emptying the act of moral gravity, we find ourselves cultivating a hardness of heart.” And she urged that abortion must be treated with “grief and reverence.”

In stark contrast with that attitude, the Center for Reproductive Rights released an online video which is so obscene that author Eric Metaxas writes, “When I first watched this ad, I thought, this HAS to be a spoof. It employs the ugly racial stereotype of a smooth-talking [black] predator celebrating his freedom to use women at zero cost to himself: Hey, baby, hook up with me—and then go have an abortion. Are they kidding? No; this was no spoof.”

The “smooth-talking predator” is actor Mechad Brooks who sits in a chair holding a red rose in one hand and a drink in the other, saying to the camera (as if speaking to his spouse), “All these years so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. . . Put limits on you, on me, on us.” And then, Metaxas notes, “he roars with laughter,” a sardonic, mocking laughter at that.

“We’re going to be standing right by your side, today, tomorrow, and the years to come,” he continues. “Because that is how much you mean to me, baby.” And then, once more, the laughter.

To repeat: This was not intended to be a sick joke or a demented spoof. This was meant to be taken seriously, presumably by the same kind of people who shouted their approval of abortion at last year’s Democratic National Convention. Let’s celebrate the slaughter of 55 million babies in the womb, especially in the African American community!

Metaxas quotes Ryan Scott Bomberger, an African-American pro-lifer who runs the Radiance Foundation, who noted that, “With the black abortion rate as high as it is and black fathers as absent as they are, it’s just sick to see Mehcad Brooks shill for the number-one killer in the black community.”

More graphic still are the comments of Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who asked what her uncle would do “if he’d lived to see the contents of thousands of children’s skulls emptied into the bottomless caverns of the abortionists’ pits?”

Naomi Wolf wrote that, “The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. We revile their placards showing an enlarged scene of the aftermath of a D & C abortion: we are disgusted by their lapel pins with the little feet, crafted in gold, of a 10-week-old fetus; we mock the sensationalism of The Silent Scream.”

Yet, she asked, “How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too: and strong women, presumably do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism.”

In light of these comments, I would like to make a simple proposal. The repulsive video described here has been pulled by its producer, but if someone can find a copy of it (legally), perhaps they can remake it, interspersed with these very images Wolf describes, terribly disturbing images which are now readily available online. Then let’s see if a single pro-abortion leader in the world will even attempt to minimize the horror of abortion.

Wolf argued that, “Only if we uphold abortion rights within a matrix of individual conscience, atonement and responsibility can we both correct the logical and ethical absurdity in our position and consolidate the support of the center.”

Let every American look at the pictures of these ripped up and mutilated babies and ask if it is possible for there to be an “abortion rights” movement that operates “within a matrix of individual conscience, atonement and responsibility.” And let every American ask what kind of human beings (and what kind of organization) could mockingly celebrate the slaughter of the unborn.


Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.
To keep costs down many abortion clinics DO NOT pay to dispose of the babies through a licensed, regulated medical waste company.

Many of the Abortion Clinics use high volume, industrial grade 'Garbage Disposals'.
Click HERE to View Post
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Obama's Goal

Obama wants to go down in history as the only man to accomplish this goal!

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Cam Edwards from NRA News on MSNBC's Deceptive Editing of the "Newtown Hecklers"

“I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips. [Pause, waiting for response.] Not one person can answer that question.”

Audience members: ”[Unintelligible] Second Amendment shall not be infringed”

Public official: “Please no comments while Mr. Heslin is speaking. Or we’ll clear the room. Mr. Heslin please continue.”


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.