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".....
December 17th, 2012
Our hearts, thoughts and prayers, from the Conservative Refocus family, go out very sadly to the family members of the Sandy Hook Disaster. Mere words can neither repair nor express what those families must be going through during this Christmas season.
Godspeed to all in great hope for the measured blessings of time and healing.
By Barry Secrest
Why is it that an impending tax increase, which the Democrats have always sought, and which the Republicans have never wanted, has suddenly become anathema to the Liberals of America?
We have heard nothing but grumbling and bellicose whining, from the Liberals, ever since the Bush tax-cuts were passed into law on a bi-partisan basis back in the early 2000's. In fact, over 10 years of incessant whining and gnashing of teeth have ensued since Bush sought and Conservatives wholeheartedly approved a massive stimulus in the form of tax-cuts in the post 9/11 economic landscape, which immediately occurred in the wake of the paralyzing terrorist attacks on America.
So, if the tax cuts were so bad for America back then to the Democrats, and have been utterly ghastly for America up to the present day according to those same Democrats, then why are Obama, the Media and virtually every Left-Wing politico on the planet now calling the looming rate expiration "The Fiscal Cliff ?"
If, by using the left's latest imprimatur, that raising taxes only on the middle-class is horrible for America, then why is it that raising taxes on what the Left-Wing describes as "The Wealthy," equally as integral in order to improve the economy? It makes absolutely no sense on the face of it, based upon all that we know and everything that we have seen from the radical Left. The Left's premise that a tax increase targeting the wealthy to the tune of approximately $ 85 billion dollars will somehow improve either debt or deficit is an idea well beyond laughable when compared to a $16 trillion dollar debt.
Meanwhile the squishy Republicans have placed tail between leg while offering all sorts of ritual Mandrake root supplications to the mighty El Magnifico for his divine approval. From "revenues on the table" to the latest, "increased taxation on millionaires," Boehner has sought wildly for a sacrifice to throw into the pyre of Obama's Republican burnt offerings.
So, will these sacrificial gifts finally work to the Anointed One's appeasement?
Or, more likely, is this yet another bait and switch game being expertly played by Obama and the Democrats? The actual facts that are in play at present, speak to the simple truth that only in America, could a sitting Liberal President:
-Intentionally blow-off the passage of a US budget for three years in a row
-While spending $ 1.5 trillion more than the government earns each year
-Then blame the opposition party for potentially driving the nation over a fiscal cliff
-Due to that same party, the Republicans, insistence on putting an end to the spending madness
-By cutting the AA spending spree, while that same chief executive insists on now increasing taxes
-In order to cover his own insane spending which actually caused all of the chaos in the first place.
All of this, even while that same nation's media cheers the extraordinarily irresponsible chief executive on, as a hero for our time, while simultaneously denigrating the opposition party as being "rigidly ideological" for trying to tame this reckless fiscal train wreck in which we are all reluctant forced-paying passengers.
However, in that same vein, and as it regards America's increasingly helpless plight, the seminal questions for these interesting times in which we as Conservatives live, should be as follows:
1) Did the German engineer on the Hindenburg, who originally asserted that "using extremely flammable hydrogen as a buoyant was probably not a very good idea" feel satisfied when the ship burst into flames all around him?
No, or a reluctant Yes, dependent upon arrogant content of character...but in order to flesh out the argument a bit further, how about this one?
2) Did the ship designer who criticized the owner of the Titanic for removing over half of the safety boats because of deck clutter, feel any satisfaction as he gulped his last bit of air in any icy sea just before drowning?
No, once again or a qualified yes just before the reported euphoria, which frankly shouldn't count, occurs? And then there's this one to complete the idea in full:
3) Did the Japanese Imperial army General who lauded his Emperor's giddy excitement at declaring war on America, feel any regret when a nuclear bomb was detonated almost directly over the base he commanded?
Maybe? Or was it just extreme terror he felt?
I, personally, have often wondered that if we were to continue this economic idiocy now being perpetrated; how many Left-of Center people, to include Moderates, will look back on these particular times and feel a certain regret at how they were guilted or perhaps coached into authoring the demise of their own standard of living, not to mention that of their children and grandchildren? Or will it come on so slowly that only a few will be able to recount the actual events as they occurred? Think --2008 Financial Meltdown-- for the post-mortem point.
Or, will the media revisionists among us somehow continue to incrementally win out? One supposes, as each to his own, that a large number of Americans may sooner, rather than later, be experiencing those same feelings as those insinuated in the questions directly above, for better or for worse. However, it's almost funny to now observe the "garden variety Congressional Republican's" typical response to Obama's latest radical escapade which is called "the fiscal cliff" or "Cliffmas."
But then again, it's often even funnier to hear the even more troubled counter-responses to that first troubled response, of "we're willing to put revenue on the table" from either wing of the political spectrum. The main thematic to remember in all of this, whether you be either a true Conservative or a fiscal Conservative or even an accountant, is that once again and with regard to the Obama Regime, The Eeyore Paradigm authored over 18 months ago, on this site, still rules:
The Eeyore Paradigm
The attainment of measurable disappointment must be accompanied by at least some semblance of surpassing expectation.
The cacophony of oratory extremes, once everyone absorbed what the President initially had to say to kick-off the fiscal madness, immediately began to emerge in reaction to the President's opus prime on Fiscal inflexibility concerning the raising of taxes on a minority of the wealthy, but also as it was conjoined with his oppositions' response. So, what is Obama's extraordinarily unpragmatic '' plan to take care of both the debt and the fiscal cliff on which America now teeters?
Let's look at Obama's original proposal as delivered through Treasury secretary Timothy Geitner:
-$ 1.6 Trillion in tax increases over the next ten years
Note: That's about $160 billion per year overt en years, which is a now stale Obama/Liberal trick to make a cut or an increase sound good at first, but in reality, it means nothing in the long run. With a current spending level of $3.7 trillion annually, this is less than nothing, but it's also certainly not a cut, which should tell you everything that you need to know about the "fixes" which are sure not to follow.
This amount was actually $ 800 billion immediately prior to the election, by the way.
-$ 50 billion in immediate stimulus spending
Note: Ostensibly for infrastructure; been there done that, and the President has already admitted his earlier mistake of thinking that shovel-ready jobs are anywhere one lobs a stick.
Maybe Obama forgot or, more likely, he thought we forgot....
-Unemployment tax relief continuance of 5.65% versus 7.65%
Note: Indeed, so one of the fixes for a social security plan which is going broke is to further impair it with more cuts...that should work..."not"
-Deferral of looming Medicare physician reimbursements
Note: Right, defer the payments for care until Obamacare is fully in force, then the original deferral becomes law. Has anyone successfully tied this, at least in part, to the reasons for our health insurance premiums continually increasing?
And then there's the Obamanomic piece de résistance" :
-Elimination of congressional voting to increase the government's debt limit
Note: Thereby giving El Magnifico free rein to spend all that he wants whenever he wants? Oh, Congress should easily go along with that one, assuming they just want to become completely neutered, or under Boehner's leadership, is the term congressionally neutered simply an oxymoron?
- No specific spending cuts
Which appears to be the summary point in all of this protracted nonsense.
The Summary Response from the political peanut gallery
A miasma of distressed clucking ensued and has persevered, on both sides, which could most closely be approximated to the sound of the world's largest chicken coup being penetrated by a massive pack of hungry wolves . The din, becoming so terribly deafening, that one could hardly focus on anything of actual import.
But maybe that was the point.
It's not that these issues we are faced with are not so terribly dire, we have, in fact as Conservatives, been preaching this for over three long years now, and it's slowly working. Albeit, far more slowly than we originally had hoped, in the Right-Wing media. This particular fact can be observed in the final vote tally for Obama in 2012 as compared to 2008:
Obama 2012: 62.6 million
Obama 2008: 66.9 million
Better, but just not quite good enough....
At some point, one simply has to begin to wonder what those of us in America can do to get those others of us in America to see things for what they really are instead of what the media and the President tells them that it is. Or is that even remotely possible?
The simple fact is and always has been that the President will continue to follow his increasingly becoming obvious Cloward-Piven agenda, while the Republicans hesitantly follow along, without truly seeing nor understanding what it is that Obama's actually up to, right up and until the point that it's far too late.
A Transformational Refresher
The Cloward-Piven Agenda, which this site and a number of others have been pushing as an answer to the myriad questions surrounding Obama's strategory, is one so unthinkable and so utterly remarkable that many simply cannot put their arms around the fact that a sitting US President would dare to undertake its penultimate climax.
So, what is it again?
It's very simple in theory, and as we have seen over the past four years, not that hard to undertake as long as the chief instigator has a Congress of willing apparatchiks as the means toward an end, literally.
Cloward-Piven, a plan put together by a husband-wife team of Communists, is nothing more than a gradual overwhelming of the Capitalist system with welfare and entitlement spending largess, until that particular financial system under direct assault simply implodes under the weight of far too many funding demands.
Those financial demands would include current problematic areas such as these:
Forced Government Medical Care
The healthcare mandate, which is just now coming into effect under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" more commonly known as Obamacare, passed into law in April of 2011. Even before full implementation, the private sector has begun laying off and limiting employee numbers and hours in order to avoid the onerous mandated demands. "Affordable," as we have seen, has quickly become completely "Unaffordable" as health insurance premiums have increased at at an even faster rate due to a dwindling number of workers and more demands on insurers by the law's edicts.
The cost for Obamacare was recently rescored by the Congressional Budget Office, to a revised amount of over $ 195 Billion per year through 2022, which bears no actual resemblance to its original cost score savings of $ 2,500 per person in lesser premiums, at a savings to the government, according to Obama....
Since late 2008 the number of Americans on food stamps has effectively doubled, from about 25 million then, to almost 50 million in late 2012. An increase of over 100%, costing the US Government well over $70 billion dollars per year. However, an even more telling fact is how the Obama Regime has been searching virtually every nook and cranny in the US and even Mexico, in order to find new recipients which promises to only strain the US government's ability to pay even further.
The Unemployment Benefits Extension
The unemployment benefits so far, have cost the US government over $ 434 billion just over the past four years. Just the 99 week extension, alone, has cost America over $ 44 billion through 2012. In 2008, and before, the cost of unemployment benefits was less than half of the current outlay. Congress is even now eyeballing a further extension of these benefits.
The cost of insuring those in or near poverty has bloomed to over $ 276 billion dollars in 2011 and promises to go even higher in 2012. Only one decade hence, the cost in 2011 hovered around $41 billion. The big question? How many individuals truly need this care as opposed to those who are merely gaming the system for a free ride?
Interest on the Debt
Back during the days of fiscal sanity, the US debt cost America only about 15% of our total budget. Fast forward to today, during the era of Obama's $ 6 trillion dollar debt spending program, and out total budgetary outlay, just on interest alone, totals a whopping 43% of the total budget. This figure by itself should be enough to scare the Bejesus out of most. But not the current crowd in control....
This is why when you here budgetary numbers being thrown about mentioning the saving of a trillion here or $2 trillion there, over a ten year period, throw it out as mere flotsam. Until we begin hearing numbers approaching $5 to$ 10 trillion, over the next decade, then no one within our government is truly serious about ameliorating deepening economic damage to America.
In fact, these are but just a few of the budgetary footnotes of what is now a massively blooming Statist bureacracy seemingly built upon an ideological strategy of over-spending rather than sound fiscal policies of restraint. If Obama's goals are not one of getting the beasts of spending under control, and at no time has the President come forth with any actual plan, then what are his actual aims?
Change We Simply Cannot Believe
The stated aim of Cloward-Piven is one of social engineering which was outwardly contrived to completely rid America of poverty by virtue of an annual salary for each individual American of $ 26,000 per year, and that was back in 1966. However, the engineering of such a plan naturally requires a complete subluxation of the current economic system, before the new one can be put in place.
However, a more basic aim for the installation of such a Socialist system would be one of paralyzing control. In fact, when the state pays most, if not all basic wages, then the economic system is one of simple collectivism or Communism rather than one of its lesser cousins, within the Socialism family of ideologies. Taken one step further, we have all heard the Obama dog whistle or code words which would seem to speak to a mindset predicated away from individual property ownership and individual empowerment and towards simple Statist collectivism. From Change We can Believe In to A Transformation of America, with all of the attacks on profit, business, and Capitalism in between.
Obama has allowed each of us, who listen very carefully, a glimpse into his ultimate goals for America, as long ago foreseen by Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom":
"We have in effect undertaken to dispense with the forces which produced unforeseen results and to replace the impersonal and anonymous mechanism of the market by collective and ‘conscious’ direction of all social forces to deliberately chosen goals.” Socialism, while presented as a means of assuring equality, does so through “restraint and servitude”, while “democracy seeks equality in liberty”. Planning, because coercive, is an inferior method of regulation, while the competition of a free market is superior “because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority”
If this, indeed, is not Obama's true aim then he should be forthcoming, virtually any day, with a plan for considerable spending cuts in tandem with some revenue increases, so that America can avert what will soon become an absolute financial disaster in a debt completely unserviceable.
However, don't hold your breath; The Eeyore Paradigm continues to rule when it comes to either Obama or America's new party of radical Socialist-Democrats at its core. The Leftists have just engaged the hyper-drive of fairness, social justice, and ultimate poverty if not serfdom, that is most assuredly in America's looming future.
Have comments or want to interact? Please visit one of our social media sites and let us know what you think.
December 13th, 2012
Conservative Refocus/The Examiner
Unlike the Liberal opposition, Conservatives aren't always giddy when proving something or someone wrong, and more often than not the correction, despite reams of evidence, is never admitted to anyway, by the offending party.
However, this week many were stunned to learn that the docile, vegetarian dinosaur we all grew up with, in the form of plastic brontosaurus dolls, never really existed, in the first place. That's right, it was all one very big and very careless mistake, made by research paleontologists who didn't check their collective facts very carefully, in their mad dash for research funding.
The faked brontosaurus was apparently a 130 year-old mistake made by overzealous researchers seeking treasure beyond the dreams of avarice, which never was completely corrected..
Not only that, favorite cartoon character Fred Flintstone, whose entire animated life was seemingly built around bronto-burgers eaten while operating a bronto-crane will also need some massive correctional revisions from poorly advised animators.
But how could this have possibly happened, and how did the lie live on even into the 21st century?
The issue that brought the brontosaurus fiction into being a reality of perception only, revolved around what's called "The Great Dinosaur Rush," which took place back in the late 1800's.
Paleontologists, Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope had tapped into the public's fascination with the Thunder Lizard, to such a degree, that any new find was a means to vault the dino-researchers into the public eye to an almost celebrity status, which was soon accompanied by a profusion of research grants.
As this paradigm increased, one thing led to another and before long, the science of paleontology became a massive competition to see which of these scientists could outdo the other and bring home the dino-bacon. Unfortunately for both, the Bone Wars soon turned into a financial fiasco leading both researchers into eventual ruin.
However, herein was also where the fake brontosaurus came into play. According to a fascinating NPR story on the subject, the faked brontosaurus was a semi-deliberate error brought about when Charles Marsh had found a full-length Apatosaurus skeleton with only the skull missing. But rather than let the find go to waste over one missing but major piece, Marsh decided to plug the skull of another, different dinosaur, onto the fossil.
After that, and only a few years later yet another Apatosaurus skeleton was found, but this one was a complete version, with the skull being obviously different. As a result, the complete Apatosaurus with the proper skull was thought to be a new type of dinosaur and voila, the Brontosaurus was born.
This particular mistake, although eventually recognized as far back in the past as 1903, was not finally put to rest until 1979, when the proper skull was replaced atop the faked Brontosarus skeleton at the Carnegie museum. The scientists, in the shamefully long interim period , were neither very loud nor very quick in correcting the historical record for good, and one should infer, for obvious reasons.
However, now the Brontosaurus was dead again, or not really again, because it had never actually existed in the first place, and so it had never actually been extinct either.
But then there's the other side to this "new fact"--being-- that what was once thought of as certain beyond any reasonable doubt, to include a large number within the scientific community, was simply untrue. Yet, it still became a prevailing part of our culture, in many ways, only to conclude with a century later revelation that it was nothing more than one very big and very all-encompassing mistake. Even worse, a mistake in which many of the public still, to this day, have never heard the truthful side of.
But an even bigger question in all of this?
One wonders when this will also happen to the research bonanza which was once called man-made global warming and has effectively morphed into what we now call the climate change problem.
It too has become a large part of our prevailing culture, despite mounting evidence that points to man-made climate change being nothing more than the sun going through its natural solar cycles.
We have, in fact, already seen where the global warming data was intentionally corrupted back in late 2009.
Unfortunately, that particular bit of corruption has never seemed to make its way into the researchers notes across the world, to include the United Nations. The UN, in fact is still to this day, predicating warming policy built on extraordinary pains to continue the fictional science of man-made global warming. A pop-science which promises to chase fact down the rabbit-hole of fantasy, while simultaneously seeking a treasure, here once again, beyond the dreams of avarice.
Indeed, as with the fictional Brontosaurus and, as it all turns out, those imaginary attacks that both we and our blood-thirsty offspring arranged by siccing our hungry plastic T-Rex's onto unsuspecting Brontosauri,' were even more illusory than we thought; but it was still both fun and fulfilling on some level.
And so will it probably be with man-made climate change, or whatever they decide to call it in the next decade. We should expect that the researchers will ultimately feel in much the same way as we did over our plastic brontosauri, after finding out the actual truth.
It was both fun and fulfilling on some level, them saving the world and all that, and we saving our plastic brontosaurus with an unexpected Triceratops, double-team attack, on the big, mean, T-Rex.
Here's to hoping, however, that this very extensive exercise in scientific over-reaching doesn't go on for 130 years as well....but there is one big downside to our learning the truth.
Just think of all the cataclysmic weather disaster movies we might miss out on......