Sunday, June 30, 2013

West VA Professor on NRA

A professor in West Virginia provides yet another example of the inescapable reality that the real threat to America, beyond a complicit media, is likely to be found in college classrooms.

Christopher Swindell, journalism professor at Marshall University, is calling on National Rifle Association members to be shot before a firing squad.

In an op/ed published in the Charleston Gazette in early June, Swindell offered his version of the “final solution” for supporters of the Second Amendment, as Independent Journal Review’s Michael Miller characterized his vile rhetoric.

While passing himself off as “mainstream,” Swindell labels the NRA’s concerns as “knuckle-dragging Cretan talk” and accuses the organization of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government:

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.

The professor adds that James W. Porter, Jr., the new NRA president, whom he referred to as “a white, rich old man,” has an agenda to arm the populace for confrontation and to drive his point home, he pulls the race card:

We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president’s agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.

After calling himself as a “peacable man,” Swindell suggested “to turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot,” he writes. “It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.

That the Charleston Gazette would even publish such inflammatory vitriol is irresponsible in the least, but far more egregious is that this man is teaching the youth of America. God help us.
The college professor who accused National Rifle Association members of advocating for armed rebellion and being “worthy of the firing squad” has issued an apology.

After setting off a firestorm of criticism, Christopher Swindell, a journalism professor at Marshall University, told on Monday that he was “waayyy too angry to comment on gun safety” and that he had learned that “American freedom is best served with an armed populace.”

In a June 3 e-mail to, Prof. Swindell said:

Here is my statement for the record.

Marshall’s views are its own. I spoke of myself only. But, most important, I was waayyy too angry to comment on gun safety. I maligned decent NRA members rather than the fringe I was targeting.
 I ask those people, most of whom are shocked, to forgive my position. I have recently learned from many decent commenters that American freedom is best served with an armed populace, unlike, say Mexico, where guns are banned. I never did like it when people messed up and didn’t apologize. I don’t want to be that person.
 Would those folk accept the apology of a recent convert? Chris Swindell. One more thing. My anger was misplaced. I am out of line here, not for believing in gun safety, but for being a spokesperson for it.

As previously reported, Swindell wrote an editorial published Thursday in the Charleston Gazette offering his version of the “final solution” for supporters of the Second Amendment, as characterized by Independent Journal Review’s Michael Miller.

While passing himself off as “mainstream,” Swindell labeled the NRA’s concerns as “knuckle-dragging Cretan talk” and accused the organization of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government:

“Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.

While the good professor appears contrite, his statement fails to mention his reference to new NRA president James W. Porter, Jr. as “a white, rich old man” with an agenda to arm the populace for confrontation, or his claim that many gladly invite it “as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.”

All of which prompts the question, is he truly sorry, or just trying to shake 5 million angry NRA members off his trail?

Monday, June 24, 2013

Down 700 points and falling ... Thank You Ben

By David Nelson and Dan Wiel

Now that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has indicated the central bank will likely begin to taper its quantitative easing later this year, the financial markets — and economy — are in big trouble, says Michael Pento, president of Pento Portfolio Strategies.

"Here's what's going to occur," says Pento.

"Bernanke is foolish enough to believe that he can take his pressure off interests rates and allow the market to take interest rates a little bit higher. But what he fails to realize is that when interest rates rise, it's going to collapse the real-estate market, the stock market, the consumption bubble, and, of course, part of the bond bubble will collapse."

That bond meltdown will likely come in 2015 or 2016, says Pento.

Watch our exclusive interview. Article continues below.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury note jumped to a 22-month high of 2.54 percent Friday. And the Standard Poor's 500 Index has dropped 3.6 percent since Tuesday.

Bernanke is a confused man, Pento says.

"So in the beginning of 2013, which was not even six months ago, the man thinks that inflation is way too low, and the economy is way too weak and that QE4 needs to be launched five years after the first QE was inaugurated," says Pento, author of "The Coming Bond Market Collapse."

But now, Bernanke "puts out a timeline for reversing QE," Pento says. The Fed chairman said tapering may begin later this year and finish around the middle of 2014. The central bank is currently purchasing $85 billion of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities a month.

"The man is either 100 percent focused on his legacy, or he's actually starting to fear this $3.5 trillion Fed balance sheet and says what we've done to this point — taking it from $800 billion to $3.5 trillion — hasn’t worked, and we have to stop," Pento says.

The economic recovery has been "predicated on reigniting bubbles that had once popped," Pento says. The S&P 500's climb from 666 in March 2009 to a high of 1,669 last month "was predicated on multiple iterations of quantitative easing," he says.

QE has helped housing rebound too, Pento says. "So the unwinding of this process — the unwinding of asset bubbles— is going to crater the economy. And cratering the economy isn’t very good for corporate earnings. So how could that be good for stocks?"

While corporations sport impressive cash holdings now, that's not going to last, Pento says.

"Corporate balance sheets are flush with cash because they've been selling debt to buy back their shares, and the earnings look better," he says.

"So, when debt becomes more expensive, they're going to do a lot less of that. In addition, much of the health of corporate balance sheets stems from the current strength of the consumer sector," Pento says.

"And if the consumer has to pull back his horns, then what do you think's going to happen to corporate earnings?"

23,944 Refund Checks to the SAME Address in Atlanta

Let's see, doesn't the IRS have a campus in Atlanta? They could probably have sent someone to check the address.

The Internal Revenue Service sent 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined $46,378,040 to “unauthorized” alien workers who all used the same address in Atlanta, Ga., in 2011, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

That was not the only Atlanta address theoretically used by thousands of “unauthorized” alien workers receiving millions in federal tax refunds in 2011. In fact, according to a TIGTA audit report published last year, four of the top ten addresses to which the IRS sent thousands of tax refunds to “unauthorized” aliens were in Atlanta.

The IRS sent 11,284 refunds worth a combined $2,164,976 to unauthorized alien workers at a second Atlanta address; 3,608 worth $2,691,448 to a third; and 2,386 worth $1,232,943 to a fourth.

Other locations on the IG’s Top Ten list for singular addresses that were theoretically used simultaneously by thousands of unauthorized alien workers, included an address in Oxnard, Calif, where the IRS sent 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874; an address in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the IRS sent 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212; an address in Phoenix, Ariz., where the IRS sent 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608; an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., where the IRS sent 1,972 refunds worth $2,256,302; an address in San Jose, Calif., where the IRS sent 1,942 refunds worth $5,091,027; and an address in Arvin, Calif., where the IRS sent 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877.

Since 1996, the IRS has issued what it calls Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to two classes of persons: 1) non-resident aliens who have a tax liability in the United States, and 2) aliens living in the United States who are “not authorized to work in the United States.”

The IRS has long known it was giving these numbers to illegal aliens, and thus facilitating their ability to work illegally in the United States. For example, the Treasury Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress published on Oct. 29, 1999—nearly fourteen years ago—specifically drew attention to this problem.

“The IRS issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to undocumented aliens to improve nonresident alien compliance with tax laws. This IRS practice seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) mission to identify undocumented aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry,” TIGTA warned in that long-ago report.

The inspector general’s 2012 audit report on the IRS’s handling of ITINs was spurred by two IRS employees who went to members of Congress "alleging that IRS management was requiring employees to assign Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) even when the applications were fraudulent.”

In an August 2012 press release accompanying the audit report, TIGTA said the report “validated” the complaints of the IRS employees.

“TIGTA’s audit found that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent the assignment of an ITIN to individuals submitting questionable applications,” said Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George. “Even more troubling, TIGTA found an environment which discourages employees from detecting fraudulent applications.”

In addition to the 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined $46,378,040 that the IRS sent to a single address in Atlanta, the IG also discovered that the IRS had assigned 15,796 ITINs to unauthorized aliens who presumably used a single Atlanta address.

The IRS, according to TIGTA, also assigned ITINs to 15,028 unauthorized aliens presumably using a single address in Dallas, Texas, and 10,356 to unauthorized aliens presumably living at a single address in Atlantic City, N.J.

Perhaps the most remarkable act of the IRS was this: It assigned 6,411 ITINs to unauthorized aliens presumably using a single address in Morganton, North Carolina. According to the 2010 Census, there were only 16,681 people in Morganton. So, for the IRS to have been correct in issuing 6,411 ITINS to unauthorized aliens at a single address in Morganton it would have meant that 38 percent of the town’s total population were unauthorized alien workers using a single address.

TIGTA said there were 154 addresses around the country that appeared on 1,000 or more ITIN applications made to the IRS.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

If Planned Parenthood had been around a few generations earlier we would not have ... Hillary Clinton

From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.

Who Knew - The Simpson's New

SIMPSONS MOVIE 2008: PRISM! Lisa talking about government spyin - Watch More Funny Videos

Help Wanted

The “Help Wanted” sign is out again in America.

But it’s not what you think.

A report from the newswire Reuters says that massive hiring is in effect for Obamacare with state and federal agencies hiring both directly and issuing grants to community organizations to act as kind of insurance agents, signing up as many people to Obamacare as possible under the law.

“State offices that will run insurance exchanges are hiring tens of thousands,” reports Reuters, “either on staff or through outsourcing firms. Federal agencies that are key to implementing the law, such as the Internal Revenue Service, plan to hire thousands more, and private non-profit groups backed by the White House are dispatching thousands of newly hired staffers and volunteers into the field.”

Reuters believes that the hiring could “produce a modest, if temporary, boost to employment across several industries.”

Ha! It’s about time Obamacare did something, after costing the country so many jobs, so much lost work time, so much in taxes- even before implementation. 

So that “Help Wanted” sign hanging around American necks isn’t really a sign indicating jobs for real people, like you and me.

Rather it’s an S.O.S. from an economy that can’t produce jobs in sufficient numbers to make up for the liberal job sloth produced by Obamacare.

You can’t just whack out millions of full time jobs though massive, wasteful, and misunderstood legislation and expect the economy to remain completely silent. 

Help! Please! Help!

Indeed, as Mike Shedlock reported last month, year over year “those ‘not’ in the labor force rose by 1,604,000” while “the number of people employed rose by 1,645,000.”

That’s a net gain of only 41,000 jobs, even as unemployment stats went steadily downward.

Remember all the talky-talk about the job scene getting better?


Even worse, “voluntary plus involuntary part-time employment rose by a whopping 441,000 jobs. Take away part-time jobs and there is not all that much to brag about. Indeed, full-time employment fell once again, this month by 148,000.”

The culprit, most likely, in this job-killing spree is Obamacare.

Companies are rewarded for cutting hours, cutting jobs and going to temporary workers.

“Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff,” reported the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book in March.

On cue, mass-layoffs, while not matching numbers seen in 2009-2011, are trending back up even as the Federal Reserve continues its stimulus measures.

Thank goodness the clever administration has figured out a way around the pesky mass-layoff problem with true Obama flair.

This week the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced:

On March 1, 2013, President Obama ordered into effect the across-the-board spending cuts (commonly referred to as sequestration) required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended. Under the order, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) must cut its current budget by more than $30 million, 5 percent of the current 2013 appropriation, by September 30, 2013. In order to help achieve these savings and protect core programs, the BLS will eliminate two programs, including Mass Layoff Statistics, and all "measuring green jobs" products. This news release is the final publication of monthly mass layoff survey data.
 Ok, I get how measuring mass layoffs might cost some bucks; but really? Green jobs? 

Couldn’t a blind guy with one hand and a broken solar calculator do that job for $24,000 per year?

Not under Obamacare they couldn’t.

While Obama gets to play reality T.V. star, rewriting the script to suit himself, the rest of us on the other side of the glass in TVLand have to play by the rules of reality, physics, economics and the law.

A recent Gallup poll found that 48 percent of small business owners think that Obamacare will hurt profitability, while 41 percent have quit hiring because of it. 1 in 5 small business owners have already reduced their workforce to accommodate the healthcare law according to the same poll. 

“In addition to restricting hiring or cutting jobs,” reports CNBC, “small companies are considering other ways to mitigate the expected financial fallout. Twenty-four percent are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage, while 18 percent have ‘reduced the hours of employees to part-time’ in anticipation of [Obamacare’s] effects.”

But it’s not just small business that getting the shaft.

Obama’s former chief of staff- and Chicago’s newest mayor-for-life- Rahm Emanuel, who decided that the city was through with paying for healthcare benefits on behalf of about 30,000 retired government workers.

“Once the phaseout is complete,” reported the Chicago Tribune, “those retired workers would have to pay for their own health insurance or get subsidies under the [Obamacare.] The city-subsidized coverage is particularly important to retired workers who aren't yet eligible for Medicare, as opposed to those 65 or older who use the subsidies for Medicare supplemental insurance.”

The 30,000 retired workers will either pay for their health insurance individually, says the city, or they can move their healthcare over to Obamacare and receive a federal government subsidy along the way, in addition to paying an out of pocket premium. The proposal will save Chicago $109 million next year.
The bill to the federal government for the move to Obamacare will be $110 million.

Which is really the point right?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, to make up for the money Chicago saved by passing along twice the healthcare costs to retirees and the federal government, had to mass layoff the Mass-Layoff Statistics guys in order to be able to afford Obamacare.

Thus the circle is complete.

So, as I said in the beginning: 

Help is wanted.

Send help.


Your Car is Reporting You

Think about your morning: You gather the last of your belongings before heading off to work.
As you exit the house, you unlock your car. It beeps, the headlights flash, you approach your vehicle and get behind the wheel.

You start the engine, back out of the driveway and drive down the road.

Whether that drive is one mile or one hundred miles, there’s something that you should know…

You’re being tracked.

You see, inside your car there’s a “black box” similar to the ones found in airplanes. And it logs all of your information from startup to shutdown.

And the government has mandated that every new car sold by September 1, 2014 must have a black box on board. In fact, 96% of all 2013 vehicles have these black boxes.

But a couple members of Congress are introducing legislation that would require a user-friendly “off switch.”

Origins of Intrusion

If you happened to read your owner’s manual cover-to-cover, you’d probably know what I’m talking about. But, if you’re like the vast majority of people on this planet, there’s a strong chance that this is the first you’re hearing about these black boxes.

Inside most of today’s vehicles, a recorder the size of a deck of cards is lodged in unspecified locations. This “black box” is called an Event Data Recorder (EDR), and it was initially intended to track “crash data,” which consists of moment-by-moment statistics of the events leading up to a collision.

Tracking things like vehicle speed, engine speed, throttle position, braking status, steering angle, force of impact, seatbelt status and airbag deployment.

This type of data was initially designed for motor vehicle safety enhancements. But now it’s being used as key evidence in civilian and insurance court cases…

No Opting Out

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is preparing regulations for full EDR implementation starting next year. The problem is the NHTSA doesn’t want your EDR to have an off switch. Heck, they don’t even want you to know where it’s located.

Representatives Mike Capuano (D-MA) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) want to change that. They believe that you should have full control over your vehicle’s black box.

You see, many folks have been completely sandbagged by their EDR in a court of law… a device they didn’t even know was in their vehicle! And Capuano and Sensenbrenner believe that’s totally unfair.

The two representatives have proposed legislation that would require every manufacturer to divulge information about the black box before any buyer drives the car off the lot. 

Additionally, the legislation would give full ownership of the data collected on the black box to the vehicle titleholder.

That is, of course, if the titleholder wants the EDR turned on in the first place…which brings us to the most important part of the legislation. Both representatives believe you should have the right to turn off your EDR if you don’t feel like being traced.

Federal Employees PAID to Work for Unions

 More than 250 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs are being paid to work for government employee unions rather than veterans — even though the VA has a backlog of nearly 1 million unprocessed benefit claims.

These employees are on "official time," defined as "paid time off from assigned Government duties to represent a union or its bargaining unit employees," according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Their salaries range from $26,420 to the $131,849 being paid to a nurse in San Francisco who represents the Nation Federation of Federal Employees.

Government workers on "official time" have office space at the agency that employs them, are paid for full-time work, and receive medical insurance and other fringe benefits, even though many are not required to show up at the agency, reports Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

The VA spent $42.5 million on official time in 2011, including salaries and benefits.

Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rob Portman of Ohio sent a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki saying: "Documents show that your department recently employed at least 85 nurses, some with six-figure salaries, who were in 100 percent official time status. At the same time, the department is recruiting more people to fill open nursing positions."

But official time is not limited to the VA. The OPM reported that the federal government paid more than $156 million to workers on official time in 2011, up from $139 million in 2010.

Sen. Coburn told Furchtgott-Roth: "It is unacceptable for employees to spend 100 percent of their time away from the job taxpayers pay them to do."

The vast majority of campaign contributions from government worker unions go to Democrats, Furchtgott-Roth observed in an article for Real Clear Markets.

Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia has introduced a bill to limit official time, and in the Senate, Kentucky's Rand Paul has a bill that would completely eliminate it. 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Food Stamps

The cost of the food stamp program has soared under President Barack Obama and the number of U.S. households receiving benefits reached a record high in March, according to newly released data from the Agriculture Department.

The data show that 23,116,441 households are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), each receiving an average of $274 a month. That’s an increase of 27,600 households from the previous record, set in January.

The number of individuals on SNAP stood at 47,727,052 in March — about one in seven Americans — down only slightly from a record high in December of 47,792,056, according to The Daily Caller. Each received an average of $133 a month.

The cost of the food stamp program has quadrupled since 2001 and doubled since Obama took office. It cost taxpayers about $80 billion last year, and accounts for about 80 percent of farm bill spending.

On Monday, the Senate passed a new farm bill that will cost about $955 billion over 10 years. The bill cuts about $4.1 billion from SNAP over the 10 years.

But a bill pending in the Republican-controlled House would cut about $20 billion from the program over 10 years and make it more difficult for some people to qualify for the benefits.

The House in 2012 declined to take up the legislation during an election year amid disagreements over how much should be cut from SNAP, The New York Times reported.

A Kaiser/Harvard/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll in January found that 28 percent of respondents were willing to make major reductions to food stamp spending, 41 percent supported minor reductions, and just 29 percent favored keeping spending at present levels.

Food-stamp use rose 1.8% in the U.S. in January from a year earlier, with 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits.
One of the federal government’s biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn’t shrinking back alongside the recovery, the Wall Street Journal reported last month.
 Food stamp rolls increased on a year-over-year basis, but were 1.1% lower from the prior month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported. Though annual growth continues, the pace has slowed since the depths of the recession.
Illinois was the only state to see a double-digit year-over-year jumps in use, while Oregon, Maine, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and North Carolina all posted annual drops.
Mississippi was the state with the largest share of its population relying on food stamps — 22% — though Washington, DC was a bit higher overall at 23%. One in five residents in Louisiana, Tennessee and George also were food-stamp recipients. Wyoming had the smallest share of its population on food stamps — 7%.

Monday, June 17, 2013

They even take Muskets!

Gun control enthusiasts have frequently mocked Second Amendment supporters by saying they only have the right to a musket, which was the weapon of choice at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted.
However, now lawmakers have taken to even confiscating these weapons.
·         Warfarin Testing at HomeWhy drive to the lab when you can test your PT/INR levels at home?
·         The Benghazi PetitionStand with Lindsey Graham to Get To The Bottom of Benghazi. Sign
The Daily Herald reports Arthur Lovi, a resident of Arlington Heights, Ill., who is also an Air Force veteran, was speaking to a VA psychiatrist about tragedies in his life, including the loss of his wife of 33 years.
Although she had died nine years before, Lovi said the wound from her death was still raw. Even to this day, he remained somewhat bitter after a doctor incorrectly diagnosed her as having a cold after she complained of being tired and bruising easily. The following day another doctor informed her she had leukemia, and she died a few weeks later.
“I’ll have hard feelings about it until the day I die,” Lovi told the Daily Herald. “Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I’ll never know.”
Followings his appointment with the psychiatrist, the therapist contacted the police to tell them Lovi had made a threat against the doctor who made the first diagnosis. However, she went on to tell them she did not consider him to be a threat, but simply did so because it was part of her job.
Th report resulted in several officers showing up at his house later that night and confiscating his three antique firearms, which included a musket that was over 100 years old.
According to Lovi, two days later he asked about his firearms, and an officer came to his house to talk about it. He said after the officer turned the conversation to his wife, he became upset. The officer demanded Lovi undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Following the evaluation, it was determined he was not a danger to himself or others.
In spite of the clean bill of health, it was only after Lovi obtained a lawyer two months later that his firearms were returned. Lovi has since filed a lawsuit against the Arlington Heights Police Department alleging one of the weapons was damaged and citing emotional damages as well as violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights.
Lovi’s case is just the latest of a disturbing trend of government officials using mental health claims as an excuse to strip law-abiding citizens of the Second Amendment rights.
After the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Democrats attempted to pass a series of federal gun laws that critics say would have done nothing to prevent the shooting.
In both the Sandy Hook shooting as well as other mass shootings, including the Aurora theater shooting in Colorado and Virginia Tech, the shooters had a history of mental illness. However, in each of these instances health care officials did not think the individuals displayed sufficient signs of violence to report their patients to authorities.
This prompted calls from lawmakers, including Republicans who are normally opposed to gun control, to call for an examination over how to prevent the mentally ill from having access to firearms.
At face value, the issue resonates with the American people, primarily because for many the face of Jack Nicholson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” comes to mind when they think of the mentally ill.
However, the problem is government officials often have a far different definition of who is mentally ill and should not have access to firearms than that of the average American.
“I think the gun control crowd, including legislators, are going to keep pushing on that area because they have successfully confused a lot of people as to whether it is a valid issue or not and whether it is useful for law enforcement,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “As long as they can flummox people I think they’ll continue pushing. They’re very opportunistic and will do whatever it takes to move the ball forward for them. They’re pretty good about that.”
WND recently reported that under Operation Vigilant Eagle, the Obama administration has performed surveillance on military veterans who express views critical of the government.
Attorney John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, said the NSA is using its snooping authority to gather data on Americans, including posts to various website to provide a pretext for a later diagnosis of mental illness against veterans.
“The FBI and the Secret Service are showing up to request an interview to question specific Internet posts the veteran has placed on websites such as Facebook,” Whitehead explained, noting that the agencies are looking for “anti-Obama views that can be interpreted to reflect psychological problems of sufficient seriousness to disqualify the veteran from ever owning a firearm.”
The Veteran’s Administration has also begun taking action to declare returning veterans mentally incompetent and threatened to remove their decision-making authority.
In February, reported a complaint by Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, over veterans getting letters from the Veterans Administration informing them they have been declared mentally incompetent.
The vet must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the vet desires a hearing, he or she must inform the Veterans Administration within 30 days.
“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),” the letter reads.
Gun confiscation using a broad definition of mental illness is not just a federal tactic; several states have also done so for mental conditions that most Americans would not consider to be a dangerous threat.
In New York, following the passage of the gun control legislation in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, the legislature passed a law prohibiting the mentally ill from owning firearms.
Under the state’s mental health provisions, law-enforcement officials confiscated the guns of David Lewis after they discovered he was on anti-anxiety medication. Following widespread media attention, local officials returned Lewis’ firearms an announced they had made a “mistake.”
Earlier this year California passed a bill allocating $24 million for officials to confiscate firearms from those who legally are not allowed to have them, including those who have received intensive treatment for a mental disorder.
The situation is even more alarming when considering exactly who is defined as being mentally ill.
The American Psychiatric Association’s new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has just expanded the list of mental disorders by declaring normal human actions and emotions as mental illness.
For instance, a child throwing a temper tantrum is now considered to be suffering from “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.” If a person is suffering grief over the death of a loved one he now has a “major depressive disorder,” while a person who eats more than he needs at a buffet restaurant now suffers from “binge eating disorder.”
Pratt said Republican lawmakers seem to believe that by calling for restricting the mentally ill from owning firearms they are standing for Second Amendment rights while also promoting public safety. However, he says they are sadly mistaken if they think they deflect the issue from the ultimate goal of leftists, which is gun confiscation.
“If they think this is going to deflect from the front of gun control they are actually walking right into a trap,” Pratt said. “It is as if they were the fly listening to the spider inviting them to come into his parlor.”
He said the media hypes the mental health issue.
“I don’t think it is an issue, I think it’s phony. Psychiatry is not an exact science,” Pratt explained. “It cannot predict with any certainty if someone is going off to do something violent. The people who have committed these mass murders generally don’t have any kind of a record of prior violent acts.

“It’s an extremely irrelevant issue, and conservatives make a big mistake by jumping on the mental health bandwagon. It’s not the first time we have used the enemy’s weapons and we pay for it every time.”

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Senator Boxer would strip border security funding

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has offered an amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill that would strip border security funding and redirect it to healthcare benefits for future Democrat voters “undocumented” immigrants. The Los Angeles Times reported:
Sen. Barbara Boxer plans to push for Washington to provide $250 million and perhaps more to help local and state governments pay the cost of healthcare to uninsured immigrants who seek legal status under legislation now before the Senate.
Officials from Los Angeles County–home to an estimated 1.1 million people in the country illegally, one-tenth of the nation’s total–have expressed concern that local taxpayers will be “left holding the bag” to pay for the healthcare costs.
How does Barbara Boxer plan on “solving” this funding problem? Why, taking the money from a different pot, of course. The funding that Senator Marco Rubio has been talking about repeatedly, whereby newly documented immigrants pay financial penalties that are used for border security, would actually be used to fund welfare benefits — which has been the Democrats’ plan all along.
Mike Flynn of noted:
Supporters of the Senate bill have stressed repeatedly that newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for federal welfare benefits. In almost half the states, however, they would be eligible for state and local government assistance. The legalization in the Senate bill would put a strain on already stretched government budgets. [...]
Boxer is also seeking to allow newly legalized immigrants to access federal welfare benefits sooner. Currently, it could take up to 15 years for immigrants to access the full range of federal assistance programs. Boxer would like to reduce that by 5 years.
Of course, Barbara Boxer is a fan of legalization, even though she lives in a state where immigrants are fast-tracked to the welfare system with their own personal Democrat liaisons. For those in the Republican Party who might have forgotten, Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnestylegalization of nearly 3 million “undocumented” immigrants led to permanent Democrat majorities in California. And whether or not you like Ann Coulter, she cites verifiable statistics:
Currently, 71 percent of illegal immigrant households with children collect federal benefits.
In California — which will be America if Rubio’s plan goes through — 82 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant are on welfare, as are 61 percent of households headed by legal immigrants, according to the March 2011 Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.
If Ann Coulter is not your cup of tea, Harvard Professor George J. Borjas concluded in a reportwith internal citations that immigrants tend to cluster in high welfare states and use more welfare than the general population.
But for some reason, the Republican Party thinks that getting 11 million “undocumented” immigrants “out of the shadows” is of high priority with legal immigrant voters and that the newly documented can be wooed to the low taxation, small government way of looking at things (let’s pretend the GOP stands for this for the sake of argument). ABC News published a somewhatmisleading report that nonetheless puts its finger on the pivotal problem:
“It’s a long time coming. You’re talking about 15 to 20 years before we’re talking about a whole slew of new voters coming into the electorate,” said Jennifer Korn, executive director of the Hispanic Leadership Network, who served as Hispanic outreach director for George W. Bush’s presidential campaign.
“If Republicans can map out and change their positions with things that Hispanics do support — on less government, lower taxes, less regulations on small businesses — then they can really compete for the Hispanic vote over the next 20, 30 years.”
National Journal splashes a little cold water on that heady assessment:
But it’s on the question of big government that Hispanics stand most solidly with Democrats. The 2011 Pew Hispanic Center survey asked Latinos whether they would “pay higher taxes to support a larger government or pay lower taxes and have a smaller government”? Hispanics backed higher taxes and more government by 75 percent to 19 percent. For the population as a whole, 48 percent favored smaller government to 41 percent wanting big government.
The coup de grace comes when Hispanics are asked to cite their top priority. Only 12 percent said immigration; half chose the economy and jobs—where they stand with Democrats.
The Democrats are not negotiating in good faith on immigration and simply want immigrants to get on the public welfare dolls and onto Democrat voter rolls as fast as possible. Senator Boxer’s amendment gives the game away, and Republicans are terrible poker players if they don’t notice it.

Obamacare not fair for Congress?

14-year-old boy faces year in jail for wearing NRA T-shirt to school

Jared Marcum, the eighth-grade boy arrested in April for wearing a pro-NRA t-shirt to his class at Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va., now faces a year in jail, Gun Saves Lives reported Saturday, citing a report at WTRF
Marcum appeared before a judge Thursday, June 13, 2013, and was officially charged with obstructing an officer and could be sentenced to a year in jail and a $500 fine.
"Me, I'm more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we're going to get through this," said Jared's father Allen Lardieri. "I don't think it should have ever gotten this far."
According to WTRF, the Logan County Police Department initially said that Marcum was arrested for disturbing the education process and obstructing an officer. Authorities also threatened to charge Marcum with making terroristic threats, Lardieri said.
"In my view of the facts, Jared didn't do anything wrong," said Ben White, Marcum's attorney.
Court documents indicate the obstructioncharge came when Marcum allegedly refused to stop talking, claimed arresting officer James Adkins. But White said that Adkins never mentioned Jared making threats or acting in a violent manner in his petition.
"I think officer Adkins could have done something differently," he said.
Neither the police nor the prosecuting attorney's office responded to questions.
White said he would work to get the charges dropped against Marcum. If he is unsuccessful, Marcum will appear in court on July 11

Friday, June 14, 2013

Saying your a Christian would cause a distraction in the ranks ... Obama

Rep. John Fleming, R-La recently offered an amendment to proposed NDAA legislation that would have “required the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.” The Obama administration has taken a position against the amendment because, in their opinion, it would cause a distraction in the ranks and make completion of any mission more difficult.

Others have framed this as an “anti-gay” amendment meant to allow soldiers (and the assumption being particularly “Christian” soldiers) to “harass” homosexual service members.

If like me, you were surprised that an amendment of this nature would even be necessary considering what the First Amendment to the Constitution tells us:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 Seems pretty cut and dry, no? Congress (or our government) cannot make any law that allows for the prohibiting of free speech or the free exercise of our religions. There are exceptions for practices that could infringe on the rights of others, but you’d be hard pressed to show that modern Christianity (or most other mainstream religious beliefs) cause a “real” negative impact on those around the practitioner.
In recent cases where Christians have been reprimanded for their beliefs, the negative impact is nebulous at best, and if we are honest, the complaints against them were superfluous: “Expressing agreement with a traditional definition of marriage”, “Not allowing same sex marriage in a Christian chapel”, “Serving Chik-fil-A at a party”.

These hardly seem like experiences that can cause any real physical or emotional pain. If we begin to legislate against the beliefs of our citizens in even the slightest way, we do great harm to the cause of Liberty.
However, if you’ve ever served in the military or tried to stay current on First Amendment law, you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that our soldiers do not have the same First Amendment rights as the rest of the civilian populace.

 “They do, in fact, have the same first amendment rights as their civilian brothers. They are, however, not absolute…The difference is that the military has peculiar needs and interests apart from those of the civilian community it serves, and they preclude the exercise of the right of free speech on as broad a basis as is the practice in the civilian community. No officer or man in the armed forces has a right, be it constitutional, statutory or otherwise, to publish any information (or make any statement) which will imperil his unit or its cause.”

I can understand the need for certain restrictions of rights as it pertains to the military because of the command structure that exists there. Joining the military means sacrificing some of your freedom (which is why the Selective Service Act is so abhorrent – but that’s an argument for another day), but the ambiguity of this ruling leaves our service men and women in a difficult place. The last clause, “which will imperil his unit or its cause”, leaves the door wide open for misconduct on the part of a soldiers’ superior officers or the military itself. Who is the judge of what might imperil, and how can this standard be judiciously applied to everyone equally? It cannot.

While Rep. Fleming’s amendment may not be perfect, he is right. The military needs a clear and concise rule to be guided by on First Amendment issues. The rights of our servicemen are of too great importance for there to be any uncertainty on the issue.