January 15th, 2013
Amazingly, the White House has responded to a national non-problem with a workable non-solution, concerning a petition which was sent to the "We The People" petition website run by the President's staff.
The petition urged the following:
We petition the obama administration to-Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016.
By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.
The President, who many critical Republicans believe fancies himself as "Emperor," is not yet ready to build a Death Star due, at least in part, to its exorbitant cost, among many other reasons.
Indeed, according to White House "Space and Science OMB Chief Paul Shawcross, the cost of such a project would exceed $850 Quadrillion dollars, an amount largely outside of the present White House budgetary concerns, at least for 2013. However, Shawcross did expand on his decline of such a project by indicating the following:
- The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
- The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
- Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
Upon seeing Director Shawcross' rather droll response, many Conservatives were stunned by the obvious evidence of an administration apparatchik who exhibited an actual sense of humor.
Shawcross went on, in his answer, to discuss matters as diverse as marsh mellows, the Kessel Run, the force and even light sabers, which most Conservatives know, were initially invented in order to counter galactic totalitarians who had confiscated the People's blasters at least a millenium ago.
However, for those who might be disappointed, concerning the loss of a possible Death star, take heart. You see, the President also stated that he would cut the deficit in half in 2010 and even later indicated that Obamacare would be an effort to slash medical expenditures massively while granting free coverage to everyone.
These among many other promises which also ultimately proved to be false, therefore, a possible Death Star may yet be completed in the future.
In fact, as far as this rather opaque administration goes, All The President's Men may have already partially constructed a Death Star which could be fully functional and aimed at the southern United States, even now, for all we know. Which leads us into another actual conspiracy concerning the Newtown shooting.
The New Conspiracy Theory
When we read of CNN's Anderson Cooper and his recent rant against the conspiracy theories coming of the Sandy Hook shooting, we could only shake our heads and ponder the fact of why there weren't more such theories coming out.
Indeed, it's only natural, after the plethora of Regime misdirections and outright lies, the never answered questions on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Bin Laden death and even the latest, where the media appears to be supportive of a fake trillion dollar coin.
There is a singular effort in America's public to increasingly question and distrust a mainstream media that's quite obviously in the bag for a political initiative geared towards forwarding the Transformation of America.
This, in turn, is reflected in a plethora of stories and theories which try to explain that, which in many cases, defies any logical explanation.
Even after the often ridiculous rants of the prior decade, by these same media Liberals, the regime in power now consistently receives a rubber-stamped approval by the very same journalistic "professionals" who formerly found conspiracy lurking around every corner in the former regime.
Most of us, personally, could never imagine how the Newtown shootings could be faked in any way, and yet, at least some of the evidence proferred does raise questions. The main question being, "why all of these attacks, seemingly occurring on an almost weekly basis, all of a sudden?"
While Anderson Cooper, in the above video, parlays his scorn of the theorist effectively, one cannot deny that Cooper offers little if anything by way of refuting the Professor's claims.
Now, why is that?
Perhaps Cooper feels that the allegations are so ridiculous that they don't warrant any sort of refutative response. Even while we have many in government who continually deny that surmassing a debt so large that it can never be repaid is a thing that is stimulative and that we all should simply ignore as necessary.
But if the media and the political Left view these classroom deaths of over a score of children as tragic, why do they simultaneously, if not ironically, believe that the annual forced deaths of over 1.2 million children by abortion to be both a necessary and good thing speaking boldly to the rights of individuals, even as those same rights are being traded for an illusory security?
Below is a Youtube video which, whether valid or not, details a number of inconsistencies that the high-information types are taking into account with regard to Newtown. Once you see the video, you might also be able to see why many are questioning the details as reported:
January 9th, 2013
By Barry Secrest
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. It was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity"....
Charles Dickens in part, at least, sums up 2012 almost prophetically, for many of us....
Indeed, as all of the hope for change that was built up by the political Right in 2012 got completely obliterated on November the 6th, it also became time to begin laying out a battle plan for 2013. Regarding the Republican leadership, so far, that plan appears to be to drop their rusty ideologies and run like hell.
For Conservatives, it's clearly a time for an educational reaping of the harvest, but what about the Democrats?
Well, the Liberals' plan continues to be one of mythic misdirection on the one hand, while abruptly wheeling their party hard-over to the Left, on the other. But, while many may have forgotten 2010 in all of this bureaucratic bedlam, many others of us can see a historical repeat of 2010 coming for 2014.
You see, while few still will blame El Magnifico for the coming pain, the Liberals, as a whole, neither cannot nor will not escape the residue of Obama's ideological lunacy. However, all of that aside, now as 2013 is at Genesis becomes where we get to go back and relive all the things that happened for 2012 in the form of Conservative Refocus columns that shined most brightly.
Coming in at the 10th slot, out of well over 100 articles, "Bumbling Brother's" was a labor of love intent on comparing the Obama Regime to a three ring circus that actually worked out pretty well.
When it comes to frivolous Federal expenditures, Barack the Job Slayer and his colorful choom gang will come out hailing the skyrocketing outlays in effusive triplication, with trumpets blazing and disciples bowing. The President's cultish high priests within the media, ready and fully waiting to gather round and shout down anyone who dissents, dutifully emit ad hoc charges of racism, bigotry, sexism and other such derogatory language until the offending party is completely muffled and totally depleted.
However, the main point of the article was this rather astounding fact with regard to US tax Revenues:
While the US is collecting over 20% more in revenue from a mere 313 million people than China is collecting, which has a population of four times America's at 1.3 Billion and has a Communist system, for heaven's sake, the statists in America still managed to overspend their 2011 collections by an astounding $1.3 trillion and in what is supposed to be a Free Market system, to boot.
If you add India and China's total revenue collections together, with a total population of over 2.5 billion people which is well over 1/3 the entire world's population, their collections are then roughly equal to the revenue collection of the United States, even with less than 5% of the world's population.
Coming in at the 9th slot was a simple and quick refutation of Jake Tapper over the Obama "Birther" Certificate recusal that went absolutely ballistic in the number of reads:
Our closing point to Tapper who sought to nullify the issue was simply this:
Interesting, it is, that the only folks who find these questions of Obama's eligibility "ridiculous" are largely the ones on the extreme Left and the Establishment class, such as you within the media, Jake. It reminds me of the Catholic Churches recent admission that the world is round. Like it or not, the doubts will persist until we see some actual evidence that disproves everything we have on file up to this point. And, by the way, it will take a lot more than a poorly forged birth certificate that was "finally found" after a difficult two year search.
Next up, was a column that rehashed our top colmuns from 2011.
Ya just gotta love that.....
At the 7th most popular position, was a quick column which was derived from a news report on a forced rebating position in the Obamacare mandate. Here, insurance companies were forced to rebate "profit" over an acceptable amount back to the proletariat:
You see, one of the most basic theories of Communist Marxism is the fact that Karl Marx, the originator of Marxism, felt that the State should take whatever it needed from the people in order to pay for its costs of providing services to the proletariat, in this case healthcare services to US Citizens, as a Collectivist economic necessity.
In Marxist theory, one of the repeatedly illustrated quotes is this one:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
At number six was a column written in July 2011 that we decided to re-run for July the 4th of 2012, due to its popularity:
The core idea from the Liberal Utopians, i.e. Progressives, suggests the desire for a world completely without natural risk, a thing which is totally at odds with Natural Law. The rueful truth to the Progressives' aims, however, is the greater truth that speaks to the usurpation of a mass grouping of useful idiots and the insidious machinations of a multi-generational Globalist movement which touts a new age, while actually hearkening back to the Dark Ages.
The core idea from the Liberal Utopians, i.e. Progressives, suggests the desire for a world completely without natural risk, a thing which is totally at odds with Natural Law. The rueful truth to the Progressives' aims, however, is the greater truth that speaks to the usurpation of a mass grouping of useful idiots and the insidious machinations of a multi-generational Globalist movement which touts a new age, while actually hearkening back to the Dark Ages.
Coming at midway through our most popular of 2012, was a concerted defense of Rush Limbaugh, the Doctor of Democracy, who had gotten himself into trouble over the Sandra Fluke incident, and needed to be defended. The Conservative Media responded quickly and corralled the wagons around Rush while also attacking his attackers and baring long teeth at those who sought to abandon him.
It obviously worked out for Rush; however, things were touch and go there for a few days:
Next up was an article that actually proved to be wrong, in the long run, despite the fact that its reasoning was clearly correct. It's one of the few things we have ever gotten wrong, but at least we appear to be in good company:
Drifting quickly back again to the wise youngster's voice, his subjectivity reminding me a great deal of my own young sons of about the same age, he was highlighting a growing concern for America's future. As I listened to the two discuss America's current generational quandary on the radio, I glanced up at the Charlotte skyline, my vehicle describing a long, lazy arc around the metropolis; uptown buildings leaping from a lush canopy of trees. My gaze returned to the freeway long enough to verify where I and the other vehicles were. I glanced up at the sky scrapers again, consternated that something very familiar was missing. My eyes darted cautiously across the skyline trying to find this missing symbol that should have been embedded deep in the heart of one of America's largest financial centers, and yet the expected elements, long a familiar sight, simply weren't there.
Next up at third most popular. was an astounding post which seemed to prove that there was a number of questions, even to Obama's attorneys, that the President had some clear problems concerning his birth certificate:
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama's alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama's ineligibility in a court of law.
#3) The Audacity of Hoax: Obama Birth Certificate Admitted Forgery by Obama Attorney (CBS News 5 Video)
At second, was a heavily researched article, in which went back in time and pulled out highlights from Obama's fifty, or so, years (No one knows exactly)
In the post we at least try to explain some of the events that shaped El Magnifico's life, without boring everyone to tears. The effort was successful, placing the column at one of the most read of all time, at Conservative Refocus:
So, why did the Associated Press, back on June 27th, 2004, trumpet the fact that a Kenyan-born American named Barack Obama was now being elevated as a US Senator in the East African Sunday Standard newspaper, and is this article actually legitimate?
Indeed, it is, as a matter of fact. When this story was first discovered some time ago, we actually visited the East-African Standard website, clicked on the associated link in the EAS Standard's archived wayback machine, and there both the article and picture magically appeared. Unfortunately, the link has since been taken down, due to unmentionably odd reasons, we might add. But why did this story appear and, once again, is it real? The answer to this question demands a journey all the way back to Obama's origins in order to understand both the man and his often stealthily applied radical ideology, and it can only be accomplished here in two parts:
A strategic concern it is, within this nation, and now most especially, as many mischaracterize the free market as something greedily contrived and filled with excessive fault, when in fact, it is simply the most natural order of things when it comes to human socioeconomic interaction and the service of others. Many would even further assert that it's high time the balance of our corporate leaders began realizing this to the point of voicing it, and yes, to even those self-acclaimed wiser beings who populate the corporate Media news jungle. So far, this labor of love has largely been left to the Academians, and we all know where that road to serfdom leads.
So, there you have it, the best of our best according to our highly valued readers, but to end I need only point out a passage in an article written not too long ago, about the mean differences of being either a Conservative or a modern-day Liberal:
Our opposition, the Liberals, sees the human race more as an artificial infection that must be controlled and ameliorated, rather than nourished and multiplied.
The Right sees humanity as a natural part of the environment, and a powerful force of nature in its own right, but far less powerful than the might and the energy that exists within the earth and its atmosphere.
The Right believe that we, as a people, naturally belong wherever we might be, and that Natural Law holds each of us as valuable and worthy unto ourselves. The Left seems to harbor a veiled sort of contempt for the embarrassing predicament of their being caught human, who will then try all sorts of ridiculous labors and contrivances to correct their natural conundrum of being born a species less desirable.
January 2nd, 2013
Liberal, UK Elitecompoop Piers Morgan ran the following diatribe in numerous media venues on December 29. Below is the full column, unedited, and our response, integrated within, presented much like a conversation, as it turns out...
From the UK Daily Mail and Conservative Refocus
Piers: I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party to the Czech capital Prague a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting.
CR: Now, to start, the writer is perplexingly telling us that since he has shot and held a gun at least once in his life, this makes him qualified to speak out on gun issues, one supposes? But he is also telling us that, by virtue of his going on a "stag party," he is "one of the boys." Wonder if Piers has issues with regard to his apparently waning masculinity?
At any rate, one must also suppose, then, that in order for Piers to view himself "qualified" to speak out on any subject, he first must have experienced that particular subject on a first-hand basis. Be sure and pay close attention to the remainder of his shows, therefore. They (the shows) could, in fact, become rather fascinating for a change, on that basis alone.
Piers: But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.
CR: Did you then kill someone while on the targeting range, Piers?
Shall we need to contact the authorities?
On that basis, any visit to just about any venue one could care to name, could also be firmly ensconced into the suppository of deadly destinations. From a visit to your local Chinese food restaurant, which is filled with any manner of sharp, cutting, slashing and flesh-cooking devices, to even your local car dealership, which is filled with massive, steel and plastic blunt trauma devices, just itching to inflict mayhem and death at the drop of a hat, or in this case, a foot. To even your village hardware store, a veritable cornucopia of possible killing devices.
But let's not stop there, because virtually any and every residential building site is also fraught with the trappings of death, a dangerous world it is. Everywhere we look, as modern human beings the potential for death exists and always has. This is why training and knowledge with a healthy helping of common sense is so terribly important and always has been--a thing that most Liberals tend to either overlook or go completely bonkers over.
But at least we can see where Mr. Morgan is headed.
Piers: Rarely has the hideous effect of a gun been more acutely laid bare than at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, two weeks ago – when a deranged young man called Adam Lanza murdered 20 schoolchildren aged six and seven, as well as six adults, in a sickening rampage.
CR: Keyword here being "Deranged"
Piers: The Sandy Hook massacre brought back such horribly vivid memories for me of Dunblane, the worst mass shooting in Britain in my lifetime I was editor of the Daily Mirror on that day back in 1996 and will never forget the appalling TV footage of those poor Scottish mothers sprinting to the small primary school, many already howling with anguish at the thought of what might have happened to their five-year-old children. It was a slaughter so senseless, so unspeakable, that it reduced even hard-bitten news reporters, including me, to tears.
CR: Now Piers is setting us all up for the punch by dissembling on what happened in his native country over 16 years ago, another tragedy by yet another deranged human being.
Piers: And as I watched the parents at Sandy Hook racing to try to find their children, I saw the same images, the same terror, that engulfed Dunblane. And I felt the same tears welling up.
Then, 16 five-year-old children were slain in their classroom. Now, 20 six- and seven-year-olds. Beautiful young lives snuffed out before they had a chance to fulfill any of their potential. It made me so gut-wrenchingly angry.
CR: It made me angry as well, along with 99% of the planet, so while Pier's point is well-taken and we now completely understand the fact the he is not some raving anti-social lunatic, let's get to the meat of his diatribe.
Piers: I have four children. And I still remember the blind terror I felt when I lost my son Stanley, then aged two, for half an hour at a cricket match on a field surrounded by a small running creek. I was sure he’d drowned. But I was lucky: he finally emerged from where he’d been hiding – big, cheeky grin intact.
CR: Well, if that had been my child, that "cheeky grin" would have been short-lived indeed. Hiding to the terror of parent in what could be a dangerous place only happened about once with any of my children, never to be repeated again. Nor did I consider the instances "cute," by the way.
Piers: Every parent has a similar story. To even try to conceive of how you would feel if your child was shot multiple times in the head by a Rambo madman at school is just impossible. I honestly don’t know how you would ever carry on with life.
CR: Rambo madman? This guy was more of a Forest Gump madman than Rambo. Regardless, Piers is going just a bit far on the visual end of the spectrum, and yet, we all know that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste" according to most Leftists....
Piers: But my anger turned to blind rage when I saw the reaction to this hideous massacre in America.
CR: Ahem...oh, on that we can both agree 100%, because the anti-gun nut-jobs were crawling out of the woodwork like hot-steel-eating termites on a search and destroy mission, even while we were simultaneously reading of a number of other assaults on children in other countries, by other means available.
Piers: Sales of the specific weapon used, an AR-15 military-style assault rifle, rocketed at gun stores all over America in the days following the Sandy Hook shooting.
CR: Because a number of fearful citizens wanted just a little more firepower for what they think might be coming in the near future, before it's too late. This, as the Leftists, with not a little help from the Republican Moderates, have all pushed the US over the brink into a fiscal nightmare that soon may spin dizzyingly out of control.
Piers: And the country’s biggest gun supplier, Brownells, said it sold more high-capacity bullet magazines in three days than it normally did in three-and-a-half years. What is behind this apparently insane behaviour? The answer is, mainly, fear.
CR: Indeed, could that be the same fear that prompted numerous major civilian agency Departments of our Federal Government to purchase Geneva Convention outlawed hollow point bullets over the Summer, Piers?
-The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets
Piers: The well-organised, richly funded, vociferous pro-gun lobby were straight out, on my CNN show and many other media outlets, declaring that the only way those schoolchildren would have survived is if their teachers had been armed.
CR: As opposed to the well-organized, richly funded, vociferous anti-gun lobby that also came straight out, including you, eh Mr. Piers? Oh, and by the way, did the pro-gun folks just walk up to your soundstage and plop right down, uninvited? Or, perhaps, you hand a hand in bringing them on for rating's sake?
Also, forgive me, but what is wrong with the point about some teachers being armed, because isn't it true? Or, do we also have a bunch of insane teachers running around...oh. Nevermind....
Piers: It’s been their answer to every mass shooting. After the shootings at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, in July – where 70 people were hit, the worst victim-count in such an incident in US history, and 12 people died – sales of guns in the state rose by a staggering 41 per cent in the following month as people bought into the theory that if everyone in the theatre had been armed too, they’d have stopped the shooter.
CR: Once again, in Aurora, we had another heavily disturbed individual who had repeatedly threatened others, still walking around while being protected by the very same Left that's now crying foul. And with regard to having an armed individual in the theater, the shooter probably would have been stopped when confronted with another armed individual, as in many other cases. But, why had not the exit been sealed? Was there a terrible security lapse at work, in this particular case, as with all?
Did you know, Piers, that the shooter was forced to drive much further away from his homeplace to his killing destination due to the fact that a closer theater permitted concealed-carry weaponry, a thing to be avoided by the criminal class?
Piers: Can you imagine the scene as 200 people pulled out guns and started blazing away in a dark theatre? The gun-lobby logic dictates that the only way to defend against gun criminals is for everyone else to have a gun, too. Teachers, nurses, clergymen, shop assistants, cinema usherettes – everyone must be armed.
CR: And if, indeed, they were, none of this probably would have happened, But no one has advocated for everyone to be armed. Simple hyperbole from the Left, yet again. What gun rights people have advocated for are willing individuals who have been properly trained, to be armed, in given instances.
In fact, something the media has not covered at all, was a rampage shooting that began in San Antonio on December the 17th, which was abruptly ended before it could be started by an off-duty Deputy who conceal-carried her weapon to the theater and dropped the deranged madman with one, non-fatal shot, while watching the movie, no less.
Piers: To me, this is a warped, twisted logic that bears no statistical analysis and makes no sense. Do you fight drug addiction with more cocaine?
CR: Oh, so now Piers is putting those unfortunate individuals addicted to drugs in the same column and comparing them to cold-blooded mass murderers?
Piers: Alcoholism with more Jack Daniel’s?
CR: Does Betty Ford ring a bell? Who knew?
Piers: Of course not. But woe betide anyone who dares suggest this.
CR: Well, quite frankly you just did, Piers, but comparing drugs or alcohol abuse which are chemicals ingested to satisfy an addiction is a poor simile when compared to guns.
A gun is simply a tool used for either defense or hunting or military applications. If subverted, like numerous other tools including knives, cigarette lighters, and even automobiles, they can also be put to illegal purposes many and varied. Even money could be construed as tool to procure, which can also be subverted into nefarious purposes.
Shall we outlaw money as well, or perhaps that's on the way out too, eh Piers?
Piers: In the days following Sandy Hook, I interviewed a number of gun-rights representatives and grew increasingly furious as they trotted out these hackneyed old disingenuous lines.
CR: Well of course you grew furious. They didn't agree with your anti-gun views; don't you react similarly, no matter what the preface of disagreement, Piers?
Piers: Finally, I erupted at one of them, a man with the unfortunate name of Larry Pratt, who runs the Gun Owners of America lobbying group.
CR: Sounds like Mr. Pratt must have won the argument....well, let's take a look-see:
CR: Yep, he won....
‘Piers: You,’ I eventually declared, ‘are an unbelievably stupid man.’
CR: Because you simply could not defeat his ideas in a public forum. Hey, I get mad too, but at Leftists like you, Piers, who want to outlaw every sharp corner in the universe, because corners can be dangerous and can kill and maim as well.
Piers: And that was the catalyst for the full wrath of the gun lobby to crash down on my British head A petition was created on an official White House website demanding my deportation for ‘attacking the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution’. This, of course, is the one that alludes to an American’s ‘right to bear arms’.
CR: But, the 2nd amendment does not allude to a right to bear arms, it specifically grants it, whether you like it or not. And quite frankly, you signed up for this when you came into our country and started spouting your Leftists non-sense. Like we really need to import even more zombie Liberals, for Heaven's sake.
Piers: The concerted effort to get me thrown out of the country – which has so far gathered more than 90,000 signatures – struck me as rather ironic, given that by expressing my opinion I was merely exercising my rights, as a legal US resident, under the 1st Amendment, which protects free speech But no matter.
CR: Yeah...pretty cool, huh?
However, Piers seems to adore the 1st amendment, while simultaneously hating the 2nd amendment? Well, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, as they say. But you should know that the reason we have a 2nd amendment is just in case someone tries to take away our first amendment, not as in the UK. Pier's country of origin has in place well defined hate speech laws which, not coincidentally, could have gotten him into trouble for going after those who love and revere their guns, with his own indelible form of venomous hate speech.
Piers: This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding.
CR: Pier's nationality, beyond the fact that it's completely un-American, is not the issue here. Red or yellow white or black, Piers-was-asking-for-attack, for coming out, as a non-citizen, trying to tell Americans how to run or ruin our country, as the case may be. We don't much like that sort of thing, as Piers is now becoming well aware.
Piers: It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom.
CR: Not exactly true on the one hand, it's hard to make the case for an American hatred of Brits, when in fact we feel natively connected to Great Britain, out of history. The simple fact is that many US immigrants came from the British Isles back in the day. Piers might need to bone up on his American history just a bit, but on the other hand, his 2nd point is partially true. We Americans, after having fought numerous wars against Totalitarianism, one of which pulled his country's arse out of certain conquest, are well aware of what can happen with a too-powerful government.
Piers: The problem is that America’s historical love of guns means the country is now awash with them – and with gun death. The bare statistics say it all. There are 311 million people in the United States and an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. (Between four million and seven million new firearms are manufactured in the US every year.)
CR: Oh, no, in fact. It's not America's love of guns that is the actual issue here. It's America's love of freedom and liberty and the right to pursue happiness unimpeded by charlatans, crooks and elite-compoops. Further, to thrive under the impetus of taking care of ourselves and defending our families, that is the issue. We understand, on an almost intrinsic basis, that firearms offer far more security across numerous fronts than the risk of not having them.
Piers: Take out children from the population figure, and that’s comfortably more than one gun per person. Each year, on average, 100,000 Americans are shot with a gun. Of these, over 31,000 are fatalities, 11,000 of them murders and 18,000 suicides. More than a million people have been killed with guns in America since 1968 when Dr Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. The US firearm murder rate is 19.5 times higher than the 22 next most populous, high-income countries in the world.
CR: And each year over 1.2 million American children, alone, will be killed by intentional abortion which is over 10 times greater than those killed by guns including adults. Where is the angst for this horrible figure, Piers? What differentiates an innocent child in the womb from one in the classroom? Is it perhaps the ridiculous Liberal Agenda? Until we start hearing you people speak about these both forced and state-sanctioned deaths, it's quite difficult to take you people very seriously.
Piers: And a staggering 80 per cent of firearm deaths in the combined 23 countries occur in America.
CR: According to Pier's Own News Network, CNN, Here are the top 15 killers in America, (“Homicides fell from among the 15 leading causes for the first time since 1965.”)
1. Diseases of heart
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma)
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (any injuries that are unintentional)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus
8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
9. Influenza and pneumonia
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
CR: So where is the Liberal angst over malignant neoplasms, or perhaps they are considered a close cousin to the Neo-Lib movement?
Piers: Since then, I’ve watched in despair as the volume of gun-related massacres has escalated. (Six of America’s 12 worst-ever mass shootings have occurred since 2007, when I first came to America to work as a judge on America’s Got Talent.)
CR: Really? But isn't it true that gun-related deaths have actually declined precipitously in the US? Or do the actual facts really screw up your arguments, Piers?
Piers: And I’ve been shocked at how America’s politicians have been cowed into a woeful, shameful virtual silence by the gun lobbyists and the all-powerful National Rifle Association in particular. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards.
CR: And....your point is?
Piers: The NRA targets pro-gun-control politicians on every rung of the political system and spends a fortune ensuring they either don’t get elected or get unelected. It’s been a concerted, ruthless and highly successful campaign.
CR: As if the entire political Left has no lobbyists? Does the SEIU ring a bell, among thousands of others? Piers, did you know that the Unions spent over $ 500,000 billion to get Obama re-elected?
Piers: And to those, like me, who stand up to them, they sneer: ‘You don’t know anything about guns. Keep quiet.Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually
CR: Indeed, Piers used them once at a drunken stag party for several hours, thereby making him the penultimate authority on gun-play.
Piers: My argument with guns is not based on some universal, pathological hatred of them. I’m not a pacifist. Guns win necessary wars and defeat tyrannical regimes like the Nazis.
Nor do I have a problem with those who use guns for hunting or for sport. I also understand, and respect, how there is an inherent national belief in America, based on their understanding of the 2nd Amendment, that everyone should be allowed to have a gun at home for the purposes of self-defence. But where I have a big problem is when the unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can have any firearm they want, however powerful, and in whatever quantity they want.
CR: Not true at all Piers. Certain weapons cannot be used at all in America. Possession of Automatic weapons such as a machine gun will net any civilian a massive fine and imprisonment of up to ten years. Nor are items like shoulder launched missiles or hand grenades legal in civilian hands.
Piers: This has led to the absurd scenario where I can’t legally buy six packets of Sudafed in an American supermarket, or a chocolate Kinder egg, or various French cheeses, because they are all deemed a health risk. Yet I can saunter into Walmart – America’s version of Tesco – and help myself to an armful of AR-15 assault rifles and magazines that can carry up to 100 bullets at a time.
CR: Did we miss something? Pier's apparent edit-out of words unseen led to a grand subject lurch, from high-powered guns to Sudafed, something most professional writers try to avoid. However, wagging the dog with knee-jerk legislation is something that Congress has become expert at while often causing more problems that the original problem itself.
Piers: That weapon has now been used in the last four mass shootings in America – at the Aurora cinema, a shopping mall in Oregon, Sandy Hook school, and the most recent, a dreadful attack on firemen in New York.
The AR-15 looks and behaves like a military weapon and should be confined to the military and police force. No member of the public has any need for a death machine that can fire up to six rounds a second when modified and can clear a 100-bullet magazine (as used in Aurora) within a minute. The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’
CR: So now weapons exhibit behaviour patterns? In truth, it's the mentally deranged and violent criminals who exhibit anti-social behaviour patterns, not inanimate objects such as a gun.
Piers: Well, I’m sorry, but ‘fun’ is just not a good enough excuse any more. Not when children are being killed by gunfire all over America. President Obama seems to agree it’s time for action. After four years of doing precisely nothing about gun control in America, he finally snapped after Sandy Hook and said he’s keen to pursue a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
CR: Obama snapped? If pursuing an exorbitant Liberally derived agenda is referred to as snapping, then Obama snapped long, long before December. Maybe the actual snapping for the President came when he smoked all that pot with his choom gang. However the essential truth in this aspect is that Obama won his election and was now ready to implement this particular piece of his agenda. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste and all that.
Piers: And he wants a closure of the absurd loopholes that mean 40 per cent of all gun sales in America currently have no background checks whatsoever – meaning any crackpot or criminal can get their hands on whatever they want. These measures, which will be resisted every step of the way, won’t stop all gun crime. Nor all mass shootings. There are too many guns out there, and too many criminals and mentally deranged people keen to use them. But the measures will at least make a start. And they will signal an intent to tackle this deadly scourge on American life.
CR: I would submit that until mentally retarded individuals are properly supervised and subjected to a common sense methodology by their caretakers, we will continue to see this sort of mayhem in a free country.Weaponry training is not a wise thing to teach to someone with obvious judgment issues as in the case of the Sandy Hook shooter.
Piers: Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one Either you ban these assault weapons completely, and really mean it, or you don’t--He should also significantly increase federal funding for mental health treatment for all Americans who need it. It’s the lethal cocktail of mental instability and ready gun availability that is the key component in almost every American mass shooting.
CR: That last bit, for the first time, hit the nail directly on the head: "It’s the lethal cocktail of mental instability and ready gun availability that is the key component in almost every American mass shooting." Perhaps Piers simply wants the equivalent of the dreadfully failed TSA agent to also implement draconian gun laws on the very people who do not even require such laws.
Piers: Nor do I think Hollywood or makers of violent video games should avoid any responsibility – their graphic images can surely only twist an already twisted mind.
CR: True again, but why not treat the symptom which would be the desire of the young and impressionable to play these violent games. No one with any sort of Constitutional adherence wants any kind of censure other than the type that a free market utilizes on a daily basis. Decency should be legislated by conscience rather than regulation. Perhaps common decency and morality, functions adherent to the Judeo-Christian ethos, should be a thing offered in schools to include the respect for life. Oops! I just went too far again, didn't I? Abortion, and God forbid -religion- pretty much negates any succession of the respect for life conversation, eh Piers? Well, unless we're speaking of "The Religion of Peace", but that's another argument.
Piers: I will not stop in my own efforts to keep the gun-control debate firmly in people’s minds, however much abuse I’m subjected to. And let me say that for every American who has attacked me on Twitter, Facebook or Fox News this past week, I’ve had many more thank me and encourage me to continue speaking out – including one lady who came up to me in Manhattan just before Christmas, grabbed my arm, and said firmly: ‘I’m with you. A lot of us are with you.’ I genuinely think Sandy Hook will act as a tipping point. A Gallup poll released on Thursday showed that 58 per cent of Americans now support new gun-control laws, up from 43 per cent in 2011.
CR: Oh, and we Conservatives are never attacked by the likes of you and your ilk, Piers?
Piers: That’s a big jump. The ‘more guns, less crime’ argument is utter nonsense. Britain, after Dunblane, introduced some of the toughest gun laws in Europe, and we average just 35 gun murders a year. Japan, which has the toughest gun control in the world, had just TWO in 2006 and averages fewer than 20 a year. In Australia, they’ve not had a mass shooting since stringent new laws were brought in after 35 people were murdered in the country’s worst-ever mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. Fewer guns equals less gun murder. This is not a ‘pinko liberal’ hypothesis. It’s a simple fact.
CR: Really? But isn't it also true that in Australia while their gun violence dropped by a precipitous 3%, over the same period in the US, our gun violence dropped over 10% with no legislation at the time? And in Geat Britain isn't it also true that crime has increased as much as 40% with even the Cops growing ever more irritated at criminals who can act boldly while not worrying about the curse of ballistic injury from defending civilians, since guns were outlawed?
Piers: In conclusion, I can spare those Americans who want me deported a lot of effort by saying this: If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me. Although I love the country as a second home and one that has treated me incredibly well, I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.
CR: Well, you may not have a choice Piers, the Brits,understandably, don't seem to want you back.
But, perhaps you can obtain a voucher and send your child to a private school if on that $12 million dollar annual salary you enjoy, you can't afford anything else. But if you do choose to leave, don't let the door hit your elitecompoop rear-end on the way out.
I'm just sayin'......you see:
Liberals function in much the same way as a debilitating, infectious disease. They ravage the areas in which they inhabit until all resources are depleted, then, much like an airborne plague, migrate to pristine, uninfected areas to repeat the devastation, once again.....
It was about 1:00 pm in a suburb of Loganville, Georgia .The mother of nine year-old twins noticed movement outside of her home as she glanced downward through a window in her upstairs office. Immediately alarmed, she moved...
December 25th, 2012
As we celebrate this Christmas season there are a growing number of individuals and families who will be mournfully unable to do so. Lives have been ripped away from families for what would amount to any number of essentially motiveless reasons by what most would consider deranged gunmen.
However, when looked at pragmatically at these instances of gun violence, at some point, one simply has to begin to wonder what precisely is going on, but certainly not regarding the question of guns and America's 2nd amendment rights.
The questions should be sourced directly toward the reasoning behind the Obama Regime's "Fast and Furious" scandal in which the US government walked nearly 2,000 military style weapons into Mexico.
The question as to the "whys" has never been meaningfully answered. In fact, there was no practical methodology for tracking these weapons. However some have indicated that the Fast and Furious operation was a false flag mission designed to build anti-gun sentiment in the US.
From the impetus of Fast and Furious, we have seemed to be experiencing repeated gun-play mayhem events in a number of admittedly bizarre instances in which each of the shooters, mentally deranged as they were, have come from similar socio-economic backgrounds down to their age and their race.
Now we hear of two firefighters being shot and killed while responding to a fire that has been indicated as a Trap in upstate New York, with several others being wounded.
Over-Kill would appear to be the operative word in this collection of shooting incidents, each of which, being truly bizarre in their own right.... but when taken altogether?
Something seems severely amiss.
All in all, with all of the anti-gun rhetoric we have been hearing of late as a result of these attacks, perhaps we should visit with one of America's closest allies, Great Britian, in order to see how they have fared with a overall gun ban in this youtube clip:
A 40% increase in gun crimes since the ban was instituted only a few years hence? Sounds just a bit like Americans are being mislead with regard to anti-gun laws.
Below is the initial news reporting clip of the latest weird instance of gun mayhem as reported by anti-gun activist news organization CNN, which took place on Christmas Eve:
(CNN) -- At least two firefighters were shot and killed at the scene of a fire that engulfed multiple houses in upstate New York on Monday, police said. Doctors treated two other firefighters for gunshot wounds, police in Webster, New York, told reporters.
Authorities believe one or more shooters took aim at the firefighters after they left their vehicles, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said. For hours, the gunfire stopped firefighters from working to extinguish the flames and forced police SWAT teams to evacuate homes in the area.
Firefighters first arrived before 6 a.m., said Rob Boutillier, Webster's fire marshal. By 9 a.m., flames had engulfed three houses and a vehicle, he said.
The shooting comes amid a renewed debate over gun control in the United States after a gunman killed 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school earlier this month.
President Barack Obama has set a January deadline for "concrete proposals" to deal with gun violence.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, has said she will introduce legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The White House has said that the president supports that effort.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, the National Rifle Association's president called for more guns in the wake of the mass shooting, proposing putting an armed guard in every U.S. school in order to protect children.
On Sunday, NRA President Wayne LaPierre told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would not express support for any new gun restrictions, saying most gun laws on the books are currently rarely enforced.
So what gives? However it's not only the repeated instances of bizarre gun-play that points to the possibility of a shadow operation being perpetrated by groups unknown. There is another confirmed false-flag operation being perpetrated upon the American people, and this time, it's a quantifiable effort easily confirmed as being from our body politic.
In this case, it's the war against those within America's job creating group, ostensibly referred to as the wealthy. The President and his devotees, while promising fairness and equitable treatment for all, have over the last four years, turned their Left-Wing impetus against what Marxists refer to as the Bourgeoisie or the Business Class in an effort to supply America with a euphemistic villain.
NBC News has indicated, in a story released on Christmas day, a set of findings that we believe show that there is far more at play than the wealthy wishing to be taxed more and try to provide some answers in the form of refuting the CNBC article findings, indicated below:
CNBC: House Republicans are opposing tax increases on anyone - whether it's Americans making $250,000 or $1 million or more a year.
Indeed, this is true; however, the reasons for this are myriad and cannot be broken down into just a few sound-bites or slogans.
We can point to two predominant reasons for the Republican stance. The first points to the fact that unless the politicians essentially double all taxes for everyone, including business, thereby confiscating more than 80% of an individual's income in some cases, there is no viable way that the US can cover its tremendous spending deficit of about $ 1.5 trillion per year.
Any tax increase is a mere panacea covering the true problem. The second reason for avoiding a tax increase on the wealthy is simply due to the fact that the wealthy constitute the chief purveyors of job creation in the US. Shifting their income from the private sector to the government will only complicate America's still dismal job-creating efforts
CNBC: But a new survey shows that they might be opposing the very people they claim to protect.
American Express Publishing and The Harrison Group found that 67 percent of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes. Their support has grown since the election. This summer, 62 percent of them supported higher taxes.
Some might say the rich are hoping to tax people richer - or poorer -- than themselves. The top one percent consists of people making more than $450,000 a year. But the survey clearly shows most One Percenters favor taxing themselves. More than half say that they support taxing those making $500,000 or more. That's up from 51 percent in the second quarter.
So, in essence, the rich to include Buffet, want more income confiscated by their government even while they take great pains to advantage every single loophole available?
Sorry, but this beyond difficult to believe; which would lead us to wonder exactly what sort of wording American Express utilized while conducting this poll.
Secondly, American Express is not exactly known for its polling prowess as also being a government bailed out entity that switched to becoming a so-called bank during the meltdown.
Also, the last time we checked, the Harris group offers reparation to each of its pollees in the form of product kickback purchase points for taking the poll in the first place.
Not exactly what could be referred to as 'scientific methodology'-- kind of like global warming...
Nevermind the fact that Buffett is even now embroiled in a difficult tax fight with the US government over a disagreement in how much his main business owes in taxes.
Believe me, Buffett is not fighting the US Government in an heroic effort to pay more taxes....quite the contrary, which leads us to wonder at the vast amount of hypocrisy on display from Buffett.
CNBC: "There is an absolute willingness for the vast majority of the One Percent to take a tax increase," said Jim Taylor, Vice Chairman Harrison Group. "What the Republicans think is not necessarily what their constituents think."
Oh, Really Jim?
But then why do these people, who are apparently climbing all over each other in an effort to pay more taxes to the hungry government spending beast, also feel that they are unfairly carrying far too much burden, as indicated below?
CNBC: Granted, the one percent is not happy about paying higher taxes. The American Express/Harrison poll shows that 64 percent say they carry an "unfair tax burden in the amount of money I pay in taxes." This number is higher for Republicans and lower for Democrats.
(Read more: Super-Rich: Tax Us When We're Dead)
Aha! Now we're getting at the true feelings of those who will seemingly be required to pay even more.
CNBC: Nearly three quarters of them are "extremely or very concerned about their taxes going up." Other recent surveys show that the wealthy support higher taxes as part of a balanced solution to the government debt problem that includes spending cuts.
In essence, there appears to be an extreme dichotomy at play as we move deeper into the story and away from the misleading headline.
CNBC: Still, a majority support for tax increases on themselves, presumably for the sake of the broader economy. Taylor said that for many of the wealthy, the possible reduction in asset values stemming from problems in Washington far outweigh the potential reduction in their income.
Increasing taxes "for the sake of a broader economy?"
How does the shifting of private equity into the government's exhausted coffers result in a broader economy, for heaven's sake? The writer here, now efforts to tie up his article in an attractive little package with an archer's bow rather than the expected ribbon bow.
In essence, believing that an additional $85 billlion dollars a year in taxation will somehow miraculously prove to be the magic elixir that America needs to fix everything.
The politicos on the left, to include the media, can keep chasing that bunny down the rabbit-hole of fantasy; however, as stated many times before, the Left is made up largely of poor marksmen who can never quite seem to hit the target, especially when it comes to the actual answers for America's economic turn-around.
The point, we will soon come to see, being that putting a radical Liberal in charge of government finances is about as logical as putting an avowed pacifist in charge of a nation's defense forces.
A recipe for chaos when the ultimate disaster occurs.....
However, each of these instances largely constitutes a False Flag operation being perpetrated upon the American from two very divergent sources. The first one means to eventually wipe out America's 2nd amendment, the second to eventually prioritize the government over America's free market economy and individualism.
These two stories, in fact, could be related in ways that many of us simply cannot imagine, yet the simple fact remains that the redistribution of wealth from private to government sector will do nothing to improve America's productive capacity.
To borrow from Charles Dickens :
The Fiscal Cliff is certainly "more about gravy than grave".....