Tuesday, July 31, 2012

2nd Amendment proves valid defense against black gangs



2nd Amendment proves valid defense against black gangs

'Dude, I've got guns everywhere. I'm a very well-armed individual' 


Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.

Please be forewarned the links in the following report may contain offensive language.

Jeremy Schenkel felt safe – right up to the moment he came face to face with one of the dozens of violent black mobs that terrorized Philadelphia last summer.

Schenkel survived the ensuing assault with no major broken bones. A few minutes later, the mob’s next victim was not so fortunate: They left him beaten, bloody and unconscious.

Roger McBride and Lulu Campbell did not want to depend on luck. They used a gun. It may have saved their lives. It certainly kept them from harm.

They are just two of the more than 100,000 people who last year defended themselves with guns when luck was not enough.

Victims of black mob violence often say it was just a case of bad luck. But when the mob saw Schenkel and decided he was an easy mark, they could not contain the joy at their good fortune. A CBS affiliate tells his story:

“The kids were laughing as they beat and kicked (Jeremy,) and not only was there the attacking mob, there was also a group of kids cheering them on.

“Almost like an admiring group that was following them, just kind of ragging on people, and one of those guys said, ‘It’s not our fault you can’t fight.”

Lulu is not a fighter, either. This Atlanta grandmother is just over five feet tall. But she can shoot. As several black carjackers discovered in April after they mistakenly identified her as easy prey:

“(The suspect) shouted, ‘Give me the (blanking) money and open the (blanking) door!’” Campbell told The Telegraph, describing her ordeal. “I said, ‘Oh my God, somebody is going to rob me.’ I said, ‘Baby, you’re going to kill me anyway, so I don’t have to open it!’”

Campbell says the man fired at her, missing. The 57-year-old fired back, striking him in the chest. Her truck sustained eight bullet holes in the hood, one in the grill. Both front side windows were destroyed. The second man fled after she shot at him.

“I carry a gun all the time,” she said.

Lots of photos of Lulu’s car with lots of holes have been posted online.

Out in Kansas City, Roger McBride interrupted a mob of 40 black people – still in uniforms from a local school – while they were kicking in doors and breaking windows at his neighbor’s house.

He asked them to stop. They declined. McBride told his story to a local TV news program:

“All of a sudden, this one kid with corn rows comes out and he’s like yakety yak, (expletive), da, da, da. He’s like we’ll kick your (expletive) too you don’t (expletive) own this neighborhood, and they are like, literally, 12 of them, start running over here,” said MacBride.

MacBride says the teens surrounded his house, picking up rocks and throwing them at him. That’s when he says in his eyes, the mob stopped being a bunch of kids and became a big threat.

He says the teens were reaching for his door handle when the sight of his Soviet rifle had an instant reaction:

They ran to another neighborhood where they started all over in a more congenial environment.

From the Pitch:

“Dude, I’ve got guns everywhere. I’m a very well-armed individual,” he says. “I love my little place. I love my neighbors. I’ve got the best damned neighborhood in Kansas City, in my opinion.

“And I’ll be damned if a little bunch of f—- – I know they’ve been taught that ‘if there’s a bunch of us, people won’t fight back. … Just take what you want and run.’ Until they mess up, and I start shooting them in the head.”

If they didn’t know it then, they know it now.

An eerily similar situation took place in Philadelphia at about the same time with a different result.

A black mob descended on Mark LaVelle’s house. He hid his family upstairs. They pelted the house with rocks and bricks until finally:

the attackers pounded on his front windows and kicked his wooden door so hard, it flew open and some of them entered his house.

“The first guy hits me with a pipe. The second guy knocks me in the face. All I’m hearing is my wife and kids screaming,” said LaVelle, who feared that the next time they saw him, he would be in a casket.

He said that he was able to push the attackers out the door, but then a third man – who had a gun – tried to extend his arm. LaVelle grabbed onto the gunman’s lower arm and shoulder so he couldn’t raise the weapon. Then, police sirens screamed in the neighborhood, and the mob turned and ran.

LaVelle did not own a gun. Maybe that is why, two hours later, the mob returned to threaten even more violence if he testified.

Call it the Case of the Missing Gun.

Just a few months before, it took a gun to save a U.S. Marine and his wife from a mob. While home on leave from Iraq, Federico Freire and his wife were trying to watch the movie Little Fockers at a mall in Bradenton, Fla. A group of 20 black people sitting two rows in front of them were talking loudly.

Freire asked them to stop. They did not. After a brief ruckus, the manager kicked them out. When the Freires left the theater, this group of 20 had grown into an angry gang of 300. They attacked the family, beating them and knocking her out.

A gun owner brandishing a weapon took the fight out of that crowd. At least temporarily.

“On our way out of the movie theater, my wife gets surrounded with about 10 to 15 girls that were about to attack her,” Freire told FoxNews.com. “As soon as I saw this I immediately ran and got her out of harm’s way.”

Freire said he was kicked and punched as he and his wife tried to run from the group.

“I leaned down to grab my purse and there were literally 100 teens around us,” Kalyn Freire said, “While the manager was in the corner with his mouth open and not doing anything.”

Freire said one bystander stepped forward and told the couple to follow him to his car, saying he could scare the crowd off with a gun.

They got the gun. Saved the girl. Six people were arrested. The family went to the hospital.

What is it with Florida? In Pensacola, Jack Crawford answered his door only to get cracked on the head with a bat. Of the three intruders, one was white. Crawford shot two of them, including the white guy.

“They’re lucky to be alive,” said Crawford, with big stitches decorating his skull. “That’s it. If I wasn’t in a good mood, they would have carried them away.”

Crawford is not in danger of prosecution because of Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law. “It’s a good law,” he said. The police “cannot be everywhere to protect everybody, so you have to protect yourself. Period.”

In North Carolina, four black men broke into the home of C.L. McClure. They restrained the 76-year old man and his wife with duct tape, robbed them and took off.

McClure escaped and gave chase, gun in hand. He caught them and, thinking one of the looters was reaching for a gun, killed him. Police soon had two others in custody. After checking for the presence of anyone in the area wearing an electronic ankle monitor, they found the fourth nearby in the bushes.

Another good shoot, said local prosecutors.

In Detroit, four black men in 2011 ambushed a pizza delivery driver. He killed one. Police caught the others. The delivery man had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Every year hundreds of delivery drivers are robbed. Most do not carry guns. That is why the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls it one of the most dangerous jobs in the country.

Back in Florida, John Lee, a father of four, was on his way to work at Sam’s Club when four black men demanded his money, and opened fire on him.

“I got my concealed weapons permit a few years ago,” he said, “Hoping I would never have to use it.”

But he did, driving the thieves away, not before taking three more rounds in his arms, leg and abdomen.

“If I didn’t have that gun on me, I would not be talking to you right now,” he told the CBS affiliate in Palmetto Bay. “They would have finished me off.” The men escaped, one bleeding.

In Avondale, Pa., a group of black men broke down the door of an apartment only to find Clyde Tucker waiting inside with a gun. He shot one. They got away, police are still looking for them.

This happened in 2009, but since the video is so clear, let’s put it on the list: Four guys break into a house. Gunfire ensues. Caught on video.

Actor and comedian Chris Tucker’s brother ruined a home invasion robbery earlier this year in Atlanta – shooting one of three black people. The other two were arrested.

In Wilmington, Del., three black men apparently set on righting ancient wrongs recently assassinated a sports leader at point blank range on the sidelines of a crowded soccer field. No one will ever know how much havoc these three gangsters intended on wreaking on the rest of the crowd. Before anyone found out, several spectators pulled out their guns and returned fire, killing one of the assassins, driving off the other two. They were soon captured. Police found shells from 14 different guns.

Curiously, of the hundreds of people at the pitch that day, not one of them got a look at the Good Samaritan gunners. Let’s just say the chances were slim they had gun permits.

No one knows how often guns are used for self defense. The Cato Institute says anywhere from 100,000 to one million times a year. But of course, the work of author John Lott is the best place to go for more of this kind of information.

Lots of journalists could use it. Like two reporters at the Fox affiliate in Philadelphia who were heartsick at the news that some suburban folks were buying guns.

The story started out as a follow up to a report that 20 black people did a flash rob at an Upper Darby department store. All on video.

Those who expected any congratulations for making their neighborhoods safer had another thing coming:

“I couldn’t believe when I heard this one earlier,” said the worried anchor. “It sounds like a ‘I’m going to get them before they get me’ mentality.”

Before he had a chance to explain why an attitude of self-defense was bad for anyone but the predators, the reporter in the field started talking about “how afraid people are about getting caught up in one of these flash mobs. And they want to be ready. It sounds unbelievable. But law enforcement says believe it. It is a nightmare in the making.”

Please note: The nightmare they are talking about is people protecting themselves.

“I talked to a number of private citizens tonight who said they used to keep their guns near them,” said the reporter. “Now they take it with them everywhere they go.”

Steve Kates knows the issue firsthand.

This Phoenix area talk show host and gun safety instructor says more and more people are taking personal responsibility for their own safety – and that is the way it should be.

“Every state has its own laws regulating how you can carry and use a weapon when you feel threatened,” Kates said. “So you have to know what they are. But having said that, a lot more people are feeling a lot less safe. With good reason. So having a firearm and knowing how to use it is more important today than ever.”

All over the country, states are reporting record surges in concealed carry permits and gun sales. Sturm Ruger gun company is selling so many guns that three months ago it had to stop taking orders until it cleared its backlog.

For some, getting a concealed carry permit is not an option. One Philadelphia area homeowner made do with what she had when she was (almost) a victim of a wave of black-on-Asian home invasion robberies over the last two years.

The invaders had already tied up one of the occupants and were holding a gun on the other.

The men were then confronted by the 43-year-old woman in the house, who chased them out with a broom as they started to make their way upstairs.

See Colin Flaherty’s exclusive reporting for WND on race riots:

Black mobs now have soundtrack for violence

Blogger: Why don’t blacks behave?

Judge to black perps: What are you doing with your lives?

Black mobs terrorize 1 of ‘whitest big cities’

Black mob … in the Hamptons?

Racial violence explodes in more states

Black mobs now beating Jews in New York

Black mob violence hits Nordstrom

Chicago’s unreported race war

Black expo ‘inescapably tied’ to race violence

Black-on-white link found in Minneapolis violence

Call for crackdown on black-on-white terror

‘Boredom’ proves to be triger for ‘flash mobs’

A Little Gun History by Dr. Alan Bates, MD

Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx

A Little Gun History 1

by Dr. Alan Bates, MD.

After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland twice.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,  about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.  In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.  There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it..

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!  While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

Switzerland issues every household a gun!
Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle.
Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!

You won't see this data on the US lamestreet media, or hear Left wing socialist politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property while gun-control laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens.  The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.  With guns, we are 'citizens.’  Without them, we are 'subjects'.  During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!  The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain.  Dialing 911 will not save your life in midst of a threat by an armed criminal.    Don’t let an out-of-control  Fedzilla disarm the American people under the pretense that it will protect us from gun crimes----it won’t.  And it won’t protect us from anti-American presidents and their handlers like Soros whose objective  is to destroy our liberties.  The 2nd Amendment has a purpose!  Finally, the label ‘assault weapons’ is a complete misnomer bandied about by the Left and the uninformed.  These semi-automatic rifles are not  themselves to blame for mass shootings---the deranged or evil people who misuse them are!  Most handguns are semi-automatics and so the Left’s  desire to ban ‘ semi-auto’ is just another attempt to take away your defensive handgun rights.    In that Aurora, CO. theatre,  had there been one armed well-trained person present,  the shooter could have been handily stopped before shooting 70 innocent people.  America needs more armed and trained citizens in key public locations to discourage and prevent such tragedies. 

1  the data provided in this commentary feature comes from a forwarded email received by this writer.

Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx

 Get the facts.  Watch the latest video clips about the latest issues on Gulf1

 If you no longer wish to receive these columns from Dr. Alan Bates, please use: http://www.gulf1.net/remove/remove_bates.html

 Copyright July 29,  2012 by Gulf1 
For those who have a burning desire to send a writen letter by the United States Post Office or mailing address can be found on this contact page.   http://www.gulf1.com/contact/default.html 




Keep up the pressure to prevent this disastrous amendment from passing.

The Senate switchboard number is below.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dudley Brown" <dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org>

Date: July 31, 2012 9:47:44 AM EDT

To: Michael Carl <mikecarl7@verizon.net>

Subject: Anti-gun amendment still alive


Dear _______________,

For the last 36 hours, NAGR members and supporters have been calling their U.S. Senators encouraging a "NO" vote on S.A. 2575, the Schumer "Magazine Ban" amendment.

I've even been told by sources that the sheer number of calls from NAGR activists have shut down the Capitol Hill call center for periods of time.

But now is not the time to let up the pressure.

As you know, anti-gun Democrat Senators are working tirelessly behind the scenes to attach this dangerous amendment to the so-called "Cybersecurity Act," S. 3414. 

I don't want you to stop calling.

In fact, I want you to make another round of calls right now.  The Senate did not take up the Schumer "Magazine Ban" last night, but could do so in the next few hours.

Please call your senators right now using the Senate Switchboard: 


Demand your Senators OPPOSE S. 3414, the so-called "Cybersecurity Act," and S.A. 2575, the Schumer "Magazine Ban." 

Please be on constant alert over the next few weeks and months -- I expect a number of attempts to restrict our Second Amendment rights to come out of Washington. 

-- Dudley

P.S. I've just returned to NAGR Headquarters from the UN "Small Arms Treaty" meetings in New York City. 

My staff is putting together a comprehensive report for you to review. Expect to see that report in your inbox tonight.


Dear Michael,
The wounds are still open from the Colorado shooting and already gun-grabbing politicians are trying to pass anti-Second Amendment legislation. 

Like vultures, they’ve been waiting for the right moment to strike, and predictably, the excuse is the Colorado tragedy.

Gun-grabbing Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and others are scheming to bury an anti-gun amendment into the so-called “Cybersecurity Act.” 


This amendment would outlaw “high capacity magazines” often used for self-defense and sport shooting.

I’m not sure how banning magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds is going to make the internet safer . . .

. . . but you and I both know these are the kind of games the radical anti-gunners will stoop to in order to strip us of our rights.

This amendment even comes complete with serial number tracking and allows Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, to add additional regulations without Congressional Oversight.

To makes matters worse for gun owners, if you get caught carrying one of these “high capacity magazines” you could be looking at the inside of a prison cell for the next ten years.


This gun control scheme disguised as a “magazine ban” could be voted on by the Democrat-controlled Senate as soon as Monday.

That is why it’s vital you take action today.

Send an email to each of your U.S. Senators by CLICKING HERE.

•   Give them an Earful! Demand they oppose S.A. 2575, the Schumer “magazine ban” amendment, and,

•   Tell them to vocally oppose and vote "no" on S. 3414, the so-called “Cybersecurity Act.”

Please also make a note right now to make a call to your U.S. Senators tomorrow morning (Monday) urging opposition to this anti-gun amendment. 

The telephone number to call is 202-225-3121.

Just as we warned, Barack Obama, New York City Mayor Bloomberg, and their gun-grabbing pals in Congress will work every angle of this shooting to restrict our gun rights. 

Our right to defend ourselves and our families from violent thugs -- and anti-gun politicians -- hangs in the balance more than ever before.

This is only their first attempt in what will no doubt be a long battle to keep our rights safe.

With the UN “Small Arms Treaty” looming, politicians in Washington are scrambling to hand over your Second Amendment rights. 

And they have no shame about politicizing a tragedy to advance their anti-gun causes. 

Please call YOUR U.S. Senators at 202-225-3121.

Demand that they OPPOSE S. 3414, the so-called “Cybersecurity Act,” and S.A. 2575, the Schumer “Magazine Ban.”

Your continued engagement and activism could be the only thing that stands between our gun rights and the gun control onslaught that is headed our way.

For Freedom,


Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. Gun-grabbers like Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Frank Lautenberg seize upon every tragedy they can and use whatever backhanded tactics possible to strip our gun rights.

We must always be prepared.

Please click here to chip in $15 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight against the gun control schemes of liberals like Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama.

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. Box 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

This message was intended for: mikecarl7@verizon.net 
You were added to the system July 7, 2012. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

Michael Carl, MA, MAR

Priest, Journalist


Michael Carl, MA, MAR

Priest, Journalist


Police Humor

Rationing Begins: States Limiting Drug Prescriptions for Medicaid Patients


Rationing Begins: States Limiting Drug Prescriptions for Medicaid Patients

(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

(CNSNews.com) Sixteen states have set a limit on the number of prescription drugs they will cover for Medicaid patients, according to Kaiser Health News.

Seven of those states, according to Kaiser Health News, have enacted or tightened those limits in just the last two years.

Medicaid is a federal program that is carried out in partnership with state governments. It forms an important element of President Barack Obama's health-care plan because under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--AKA Obamcare--a larger number of people will be covered by Medicaid, as the income cap is raised for the program.

With both the expanded Medicaid program and the federal subsidy for health-care premiums that will be available to people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, a larger percentage of the population will be wholly or partially dependent on the government for their health care under Obamacare than are now.

In Alabama, Medicaid patients are now limited to one brand-name drug, and HIV and psychiatric drugs are excluded.

Illinois has limited Medicaid patients to just four prescription drugs as a cost-cutting move, and patients who need more than four must get permission from the state.

Speaking on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, Phil Galewitz, staff writer for Kaiser Health News, said the move “only hurts a limited number of patients.”

“Drugs make up a fair amount of costs for Medicaid. A lot of states have said a lot of drugs are available in generics where they cost less, so they see this sort of another move to push patients to take generics instead of brand,” Galewitz said.

“It only hurts a limited number of patients, ‘cause obviously it hurts patients who are taking multiple brand name drugs in the case of Alabama, Illinois. Some of the states are putting the limits on all drugs. It’s another place to cut. It doesn’t hurt everybody, but it could hurt some,” he added.

Galewitz said the move also puts doctors and patients in a “difficult position.”

“Some doctors I talked to would work with patients with asthma and diabetes, and sometimes it’s tricky to get the right drugs and the right dosage to figure out how to control some of this disease, and just when they get it right, now the state is telling them that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to get all this coverage. You may have to switch to a generic or find another way,’” he said.

Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all placed caps on the number of prescription drugs Medicaid patients can get.

“Some people say it’s a matter of you know states are throwing things up against the wall to see what might work, so states have tried, they’ve also tried formularies where they’ll pick certain brand name drugs over other drugs. So states try a whole lot of different things. They’re trying different ways of paying providers to try to maybe slow the costs down,” Galewitz said.

“So it seems like Medicaid’s sort of been one big experiment over the last number of years for states to try to control costs, and it’s an ongoing battle, and I think drugs is just now one of the … latest issues. And it’s a relatively recent thing, only in the last 10 years have we really seen states put these limits on monthly drugs,” he added.

Warm Regards

Federal Court: Obama Admin. Interfered in New Black Panthers Case


I'm shocked to find out that this is going on in the Obama Admin.  Shocked, I tell you!



Federal Court: Obama Admin. Interfered in New Black Panthers Case

by Tony Lee 30 Jul 2012, 3:51 PM PDT 44 post a comment

The Justice Department has denied that political motivations went into the dismissal of  the New Black Panthers case following President Barack Obama elections and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A Federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday dismissed the DOJ's claims that its political appointees did not interfere with the New Black Panthers case.

In a case that decided whether the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, could receive fees and costs associated with the New Black Panthers litigation, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held that:

"documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ's dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez's testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision."

"Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials' representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making," Walton wrote in his opinion. "And the DOJ has not shown that these particular materials were released prior to this litigation, or that the information contained therein was already in the public domain."

The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order. 

Judge Walton's decision again shows that politics have often trumped the law in the Obama administration. 

Please open the file for details of the inheritance

Monday, July 30, 2012

'The entire Obama presidency, in one anecdote'


Return to the Article


March 14, 2012

'The entire Obama presidency, in one anecdote'

Rick Moran

One of my favorite moments from the new book The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery:

Energy was a particular obsession of the president-elect's, and therefore a particular source of frustration. Week after week, [White House economic adviser Christina] Romer would march in with an estimate of the jobs all the investments in clean energy would produce; week after week, Obama would send her back to check the numbers. "I don't get it," he'd say. "We make these large-scale investments in infrastructure. What do you mean, there are no jobs?" But the numbers rarely budged.

Now let's fast forward to this past September:

A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show. The program - designed to jump-start the nation's clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans - has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.

So where are the new jobs coming from, at least the good-paying ones? From the industry Obama wants to replace as much as possible with "clean" energy: oil and gas. A new report from the World Economic Forum estimates the sectors "added approximately 150,000 jobs in 2011, 9% of all jobs created in the United States that year."

Those numbers are even more impressive once you realize that some 40% of all new jobs are being added in low-pay sectors such as retailing and leisure. So nearly 20% of new "good jobs" are in oil and gas.

Obama hasn't a clue. You can almost hear him saying "Do you mean to tell me we invested tens of billions of dollars into research and development of wind farms and it's not creating jobs? Or bio-mass energy? Or algae?

The objective reality of the market escapes this president and his advisors. He has created a reality where wishful thinking takes precedence over logic which allows him to fiercely believe that all of his alternative energy schemes should produce jobs.

But believing in something doesn't make it so - something Obama has found out the hard way.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/the_entire_obama_presidency_in_one_anecdote.html at July 30, 2012 - 09:56:11 AM CDT

THE MISTAKE OF OUR LIFETIME…maybe in the history of this nation!


by: Tom D

The election of Barack H. Obama and his presidency has been a massive stain on the history of America, a severe threat to this nation and its future, and a debilitating time for many Americans economically. His frightening attacks on American values and wanton disregard for our Constitution rank with some of the most despicable political deeds in American history. This nation must remove him from the presidency in the 2012 election, but must also remember what the man and his followers did or attempted to do to destroy everything America has stood for over 230 years at home and abroad.

The American media and press should be ashamed of themselves for failing to vet this man who was unknown largely because of his own efforts to cover up his past and his intentions. The electorate who supported him as well as the media and press need to pause and reflect on the man and the motivation to support and vote for him. We the people must demand a better effort by the press and media in the future to vet all candidates. We must question, in the future, the meaning of declarations such as fundamental transformation. We need to assure ourselves that we know who we are voting for, who we are trusting with the executive branch of government. We need to do this so that we never make a similar mistake again. We simply cannot afford to make the mistake again or we risk losing our liberty.

B H Obama is desperate to be re-elected in order to continue to implant his mis-guided ideology, his fundamental transformation of America. He is prepared to do anything to be re-elected including continuing his history of lies, but more recently his disregard for the authority given to him by the Constitution – such as enforcing immigration laws of the United States…for the purpose of gaining Hispanic votes. He has abandoned his responsibilities of office this year in order to raise the necessary funds to gain re-election.

B H Obama, in my opinion, is unqualified to hold the office of President. He came to office without meaningful experience, with an undocumented education, questionable political ties, and a determination to lie his way into office…and to lie to accomplish his agenda.

He must not be re-elected nor should liberal congressmen who support him.

As time has passed, we are discovering that he is a socialist…that is determined by what he says and what he does. His healthcare legislation is the cornerstone of his goal to install a form of socialism in the United States. This legislation gives him the portal to increase taxes on all of us including the ‘middle class’, and to creep deeply into our lives. He is hell-bent on steadily increasing the size of the federal government, and in the process saddling the nation with an unsustainable debt. He promised transparency in the formation of a healthcare bill, but did it behind closed doors, shutting out any opposition. It is the way he operates. For those who don’t believe his socialist leaning, listen to his words – equality, fairness, spread the wealth, ‘other more equal economies do better than us’.

Where does his ideology originate? His father fought against capitalism in Kenya and lost his job when he advocated communism. His grandparents, who raised him, were communist sympathizers. During his college years he openly sought relationships with left wing and radical ideologists. He was a member of the Chicago New Party, a ‘social democratic’ party, modeled on the Swedish labor movement and radical by American standards. He was very involved with ACORN and the Chicago New Party was a political arm of ACORN. Obama denied both associations when he ran for president. He maintained relationships with known terrorists [Bill Ayers] and anti-Americans such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and also lied about those relationships.

He manufactured his own background relative to friends and family, claiming they were victimized by racism and discrimination. He lied about his mother’s health insurer [Cigna] saying they refused to pay for her treatments when they never denied payment of bills. It was part of his approach to disparaging free market enterprise and economic order. He created characters for his memoir and re-arranged chronological order of events to suit his creation of himself. He viewed the world through racial lens in those early days and still does. There is virtually no information available on his college years or transcripts of his scholastic records. It is even hard to find people who knew him then.

During his administration, this president has disregarded the oath of office he took to assure that the laws of this nation are faithfully executed. He has refused to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress, and he has illegally appointed agency directors and NLRB directors. He and his Justice Department have failed to address voting violations and other issues. He and his Interior Department have been in contempt of a ruling on offshore oil drilling. He has said he will take action if Congress refuses to act on a variety of issues, even though it is not his authority. When he was unable to get cap and trade through Congress, he simply instructed the EPA to implement regulations and ignore the courts. He has openly challenged the Supreme Court and the separation of powers of the Constitution. Finally, he has violated the first and fourth and tenth amendments among a variety of actions including rulings under the Affordable Care Act.

His choking regulations and policy and failed stimulus [it was a payoff to friends] has resulted in the worst economic recovery in our history. He demonstrates no evidence he understands business and commerce. He regularly demonstrates that he holds America and our Constitution and our way of life in disregard, even contempt, as he strives to change America to a European style socialist state.

President Obama is a pathological liar, unapologetically arrogant, and an insufferable narcissist. His lies to the American people are well documented, and there is no reason to think he won’t continue to lie as he tries to turn this nation into a socialist state. He must not be re-elected nor should the liberal congressmen who support him.























Reminder about your invitation from Ric Ben-Safed

This is a reminder that on July 16, Ric Ben-Safed sent you an invitation to become part of their professional network at LinkedIn.
On July 16, Ric Ben-Safed wrote:

> To: [the.beowulf1.blog@blogger.com]
> From: Ric Ben-Safed [rdb1938@yahoo.com]
> Subject: Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

> I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
> - Ric
You are receiving Reminder emails for pending invitations. Unsubscribe.
© 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

'What to Do about Huawei?'


‘What to Do about Huawei?’

It is time for both the administration and the Congress to reveal what they have discovered about the Chinese telecoms giant.

The title above was taken from a recent column by Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. that chronicles the difficulties the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei has encountered in its attempt to crack the U.S. market. The column provoked a strong letter of protest from three members of Congress—Senator Jon Kyl (R.-Arizona) and Representatives Frank Wolf (R.-Virginia) and Sue Myrick (R.-North Carolina)—arguing that the matter of Huawei’s activities is “far more complicated and dangerous than the piece suggests” and constitutes a threat to national security.

In his piece, Jenkins first notes that, given the abysmal Chinese record of intellectual property theft and official corruption, “Tears don’t spring from our eyes … for the travails of Huawei Technologies.” Though it is the world’s second-largest provider of telecoms equipment, with 45 of the 50 top wireless operators among its customers, Huawei has been minimally successful in the United States—not least because of direct interventions by U.S. government agencies. For example, last October, the U.S. Department of Commerce banned the company from supplying equipment to a new emergency wireless network for first responders. Huawei and the Chinese government have complained bitterly about this “unfair” treatment, arguing that it stems from a desire to protect American companies (specifically Cisco) from foreign competition.

In his article, Jenkins concedes an element of protectionism, but he also tackles the security issue and queries: “Does blackballing Huawei actually make America safer?” His answer: “Probably not.”

Jenkins bases this position on several arguments. First, he posits that “nations will spy on each other.” But he adds that “governments understand it makes no sense to endanger their most successful companies, the ones with large and vulnerable overseas assets” for “the penny-ante, highly perishable gains that state intelligence agencies typically produce.” In other words, forcing Huawei to install a “Trojan horse” that would allow the Chinese government to sabotage U.S. or other nations’ networks would destroy the company’s highly successful business model and its future prospects for global competition.

Jenkins also notes that Huawei technology “is proliferating around the globe,” and he points out that, though banned from major contracts, Huawei equipment is utilized by several second-tier U.S. providers such as Clearwire and Leap Wireless. Writ large, the problem is that of the Dutch boy’s finger in the dike—there are potential leaks and “trap doors” from countless sources into U.S. networks.

They glide past the fact that U.S. government’s ex parte interventions certainly undermine our exhortations to the People’s Republic of China concerning due process and adherence to the rule of law.

Having completed a study of Huawei’s history in the U.S. last year, I had a strong sense of déjà vu from these exchanges. The three members of Congress, along with several others, have previously written a number of letters raising major security concerns about Huawei. As before, in the latest instance they recite examples of cases where U.S. government agencies have warned U.S. service providers not to award contracts to Huawei on pain of losing all future government contracts. As before, they cap their arguments with an ominous allusion to “classified material” that they “cannot here describe.” And they glide past the fact that U.S. government’s ex parte interventions certainly undermine our exhortations to the People’s Republic of China concerning due process and adherence to the rule of law.

There is a way, however, to move forward and clear the air. In late 2011, the White House announced that it was setting up a task force to evaluate the risks posed by foreign telecoms equipment providers, and U.S. officials let it be known to the press that Huawei was a “key impetus” for the initiative. In addition, in early 2012, the House Intelligence Committee began an investigation of the security challenges posed by Chinese telecommunications companies. As part of that investigation, committee staff recently spent a week at Huawei HQ in Shenzhen.

It is time for both the administration and the Congress to reveal and publish what they have discovered. Paraphrasing what I wrote earlier, “If these are bad guys, say so. If nothing has been uncovered, butt out.”

Claude Barfield is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

FURTHER READING: Barfield also writes “A Big Deal: Canada and Mexico Join the Pacific Trade Pact,” “The First Carbon Trade War?,” “Reforming the Patent System: How Did We Do?,” and “The White House and Congress Repel Chinese Investment.” Michael Mazza contributes the “Top Four National Security Challenges That China Poses.” Michael Auslin says “For China, It's All about America.”


Image by Darren Wamboldt / Bergman Group


Recent Activity:

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com