Actor Liam Neeson lashes out against gun ownership

by on September 16th, 2014

From the Independent (UK) newspaper:

. . . “I am totally for gun control in the US,” he says. “The population of America is roughly 300 million and there are 300 million guns in this country, which is terrifying. Every day we’re seeing some kid running rampant in a school. And do you know what the gun lobby’s response to Newtown was?” he asks, referring to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 children dead in December 2012.

“The National Rifle Association’s official response was ‘If that teacher had been armed…’ It’s crazy. I’ll give Britain its dues, when they had the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, within 24 hours the gun laws were changed so you could not have a handgun.”

Born in Ballymena, County Antrim, but a resident of New York, Neeson became a US citizen five years ago in the wake of the death of his wife, Natasha Richardson, in a freak skiing accident in 2009.  The actor cites the outpouring of goodwill from Americans as one of the main reasons for his decision. Part of the naturalization process involves a test on US civics; Neeson, therefore, understands the Constitution as well as anyone. “It is the right to bear arms which is the problem. I think if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening they would be turning in their graves with embarrassment at how that law has been interpreted,” he says, in reference to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . . .

Mr. Neeson is of course wrong about what the NRA proposed.  I have proposed allowing staff at school to be armed, but the NRA has wanted to have armed guards.

Go straight to Post

Our Pathetic President

by on September 16th, 2014

By Alan Caruba
The first thing you need to keep in mind is that Syria and Iraq are now just lines on a map at this point. They don’t exist as national states because the former is locked in a civil war that will replace its dictator one way or the other and the latter’s alleged government is deeply divided between the usual schism of Sunni and Shiite.
More to the point, Iraq’s government is led by men who are the friends and pawns of Iran. In a recent issue of the Iranian newspaper, Eternad, an Iranian analyst commented on the new Iraqi cabinet noting that its new prime minister “enjoys Iran’s support and spend his formative years in Iran, and continued (the operation of the Islamic al-Dawa party) until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
That fall was the result of the war waged against Saddam by President George W. Bush. The Iranian analyst noted that Iraq’s new foreign minister, Dr. Ebrahim Jafari “until recently lived in Tehran in Iran, and enjoyed Iran’s support in spite of his differences with Nouri al-Maleki (the former prime minister). The new Iraqi oil minister, transport minister, and minister of sport and youth were all described as “close to Iran, who either lived in Iran before, fought against the Ba’ath regime with Iran’s help, or constantly traveled to Iran.”
Iraq and Syria came into being when French and British diplomats created them as colonies following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Versailles.
In his September 10th speech, President Obama uttered the word “war” only once and then only to say “We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”
The speech, like everything he says, was a lie constructed to undue the truth he inadvertently admitted when he revealed “We have no strategy.”  If you do not intend to go to war, you do not need a strategy. Instead, you can pretend to the American public that the war will be fought by Iraqis and Syrians.
So far the Syrian civil war has cost that “nation” 200,000 lives and driven a million Syrians out of the country. As for the Iraqis, their military fled in the face of the ISIS forces, leaving behind the weapons we gave them. Between Iraq and Syria, ISIS now controls a landmass larger than the size of Great Britain.
In the course of the speech, Obama said he had dispatched 475 more troops to Iraq. We have an estimated 1,500 or more troops on the ground. That is barely the size of an infantry regiment, composed of two battalions of between 300 and 1,300 troops each.
Significantly, though, Obama opened the speech by reminding Americans that he had “brought home 140,000 American troops from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year.”
President Obama has announced he intends to send up to 3,000 troops to West Africa to help combat Ebola. He can find troops to put in harm’s way in Africa, but not to combat ISIS.
All he has ever wanted to do is to flee from our declared enemies whether they are al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or other Islamic holy warriors.

Click to continue reading “Our Pathetic President”
Go straight to Post

Americans Alone

by on September 16th, 2014

For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.

Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.

Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.

The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from them are inescapable.

A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do better with married than unmarried black people.

The same is true of most other racial groups.

The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.

If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.

Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%. There are other factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.

If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.

In the West, government has become the new family. The state is father and occasionally mother. The nanny state is literally a nanny. It may be hated, but it is also needed.

That is why married whites oppose ObamaCare 65% to 34% while single whites also oppose it, but by a narrower margin of 53% to 47%.

ObamaCare’s support base among whites is highest among single white men and women. (Despite Julia and Sandra Fluke, the latest poll numbers show that young single white women oppose ObamaCare by a higher margin than young single white men. Pajama Boy with his hot cocoa is more likely to be a fervent proponent of ObamaCare than Julia. But the margins for both sexes remain narrow.)

It’s unrealistic to expect people to vote against their short term interests. Without family, the individual is vulnerable. A single bad day can leave him homeless and hungry.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The deadly jihad attack on Camp Bastion: Two years later

by on September 15th, 2014

Today is the 2nd anniversary of the deadly attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan.

Regular readers of this website have been fully informed about the horrible jihad siege on the base, which occurred three days after the Benghazi attack. But for most Americans, Camp Bastion holds no significance.

Two years later, there has been little remembrance and scant justice for the families of the 2 fallen American hero Marines who died in the attack and the 17 servicemen who were wounded.

Please do not let their sacrifice go in vain.

Refresher:

Three days after the bloody 9/11 siege on our consulate in Benghazi, the Taliban waged an intricately coordinated, brutal attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. The murderous jihadists released video exactly one month ago this week showing off their training exercises in preparation for the assault. Where are the questions?

Where’s the accountability? Where’s the Obama administration? Where’s the press? Where’s the outrage?

Two heroic U.S. Marines were killed in the battle. Their names — Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell – have not been uttered publicly by the commander in chief. Their arrival back in the U.S., in flag-draped coffins, was not broadcast on network TV. But their brothers-in-arms did not and will not forget. And neither must we.

On September 20, John Gresham of the Defense Media Network wrote a scathing detailed breakdown of this little-noticed terrorist attack on our troops. He called it “arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968.” Eight irreplaceable aircraft were destroyed or put out of action by Taliban warriors dressed in U.S. combat fatigues — amounting to “approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet,” Gresham reported.

His summary is bone chilling: “A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support. The USMC’s response to this disaster will be a telling report card on its leadership and organizational agility.”

On September 21, the left-leaning magazine The Atlantic published an article on the Camp Bastion attack titled “The U.S. Suffered Its Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam Last Week and No One Really Noticed.” A few right-leaning blogs raised troubling questions about preparedness and security.

“How did this band of radicals even manage to approach a highly advanced multi-national military base without being detected, much less force their way inside en masse?” asked Kim Zigfeld of the American Thinker. “How were they able to attack so quickly and efficiently that, even though nearly every one of them was killed in the effort, they were able to harm the mighty leathernecks more than they had been in half a century?”

National Review’s Jonathan Foreman wondered whether Pakistan was behind the attack. “It seems likely that the special forces of a professional army planned the raid, and trained, advised and led the raiders — that is if they did not actually take part in it. Those special forces would, of course, be those of Pakistan,” Foreman posited.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Liberated Women and the Traditional Family

by on September 15th, 2014

By Alan Caruba

My generation, born in the late 1930s and the 1940s, has witnessed a dramatic change in the role and the rights of women in America. A significant result of the women’s liberation movement is a change in the role of traditional marriage that was reported in early September.
“If you count a generation as spanning 20 years,” wrote Terence P. Jeffery, an editor of CNSnews.com, “then approximately 36 percent of the American generation born from 1993 through 2012—which has begun turning 21 this year and will continue turning 21 through 2033—were born to unmarried mothers.”
By comparison, Jeffrey noted that “Back in 1940, only 3.8 percent of American babies were born to unmarried mothers. By 1960, it was still only 5.3 percent.” There was a time when being a single mother was regarded as a reflection of the woman’s moral values. How a society deals with issues affecting the family as its single most important factor reflects its attitudes regarding marriage.
“It is a statistical fact that the institution of the family,” wrote Jeffrey, “has been collapsing in American over the past 45 years.”
Another statistic has significance as well. Today 51% of the U.S. population is single. A new generation of Americans, men and women, have decided that a committed relationship holds little allure.
The call for women’s rights has a long history. In 1794, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She would have felt at home in today’s society. After affairs with two men, giving birth to a daughter by one of them, she married William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement. She died ten days after giving birth to a daughter, Mary Shelley, who grew up to be the author of “Frankenstein.”
Militant political action in Britain began with the formation of the Woman’s Social and Political Union in 1903. Following World War I when women participated in the war industries and support services, they were granted the right to vote in 1918, but it would take until 1928 for the age to be lowered to 21. In the United States in 1848 Elizabeth Cady Stanton led a Women’s Rights Convention followed in 1863 of the Women’s National Loyal League by Susan B. Anthony who wrote and submitted a proposed right-to-vote amendment in 1878. It would take until 1920 for it to be ratified as the 19th Amendment.
The women’s rights movement as we know it gained momentum in the 1960s. It was led by a feminist, fellow writer and friend, Betty Friedan, who was also a committed Leftist and, in 1966, she would help create the National Organization for Women (NOW). In 1971, the National Women’s Political Caucus emerged, led by Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem. Other groups were created as well. The effort to secure an Equal Rights Amendment, however, failed.
Aside from political rights, the issue that most concerned feminists was reproductive rights with the repeal of laws against abortion being the priority. The issue was decided, not by Congress or the states, but by a 1973 decision of the Supreme Court, Roe v.

Click to continue reading “Liberated Women and the Traditional Family”
Go straight to Post

The Unvetted, the Compromised, and the Blackmailed

by on September 14th, 2014

The administration that failed to adequately “vet” Edward Snowden is saying that it has “vetted” rebels in Syria for U.S. support. “We have a Free Syrian Army and a moderate opposition that we have steadily been working with that we have vetted,” Obama told “Meet the Press” last Sunday. Our media never bother to ask for any proof of this. Who performed the vetting? How was it done?

The Obama administration doesn’t have a very good record of vetting anybody, starting at the top.

The term “vetting” means to “make a careful and critical examination of.” Another definition is to “investigate someone thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.”

The scandals in this area keep on coming. “The Office of Personnel Management will not renew any of its contracts with USIS [US Investigations Services], the major Falls Church, Va., contractor that provides the bulk of background checks for federal security clearances and was the victim of a recent cyberattack,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The paper said that USIS had conducted background clearances for National Security Agency “leaker” Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing secret intelligence operations to Glenn Greenwald and others.

Snowden is now living in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin’s secret police. Greenwald was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.

Snowden’s leaks have made it possible for America’s enemies to go on the offensive from Ukraine to the Middle East, helping to create the foreign policy problems that Obama is now pretending to confront.

USIS reported that it served “more than 20 federal agencies and has historically completed 40% of the background investigations for the U.S. Government each year, conducting approximately 21,000 background investigations per month.”

It also claims that the company “followed all OPM-mandated procedures and protocols in its background investigation of Edward Snowden.” OPM is the federal Office of Personnel Management.

So the vetters are pointing fingers.

Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “does not have [a] security clearance to get classified information from the feds—unlike his two predecessors—and he has never even bothered to apply for it…” The paper added, “A law enforcement source said Tuesday that if de Blasio does apply for clearance, he will have to endure an arduous vetting process that would include questions about his 1991 trip to Communist Cuba and support of the Marxist Sandinista regime during his visit to Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

Would it be the same as the “arduous vetting process” that cleared Snowden? Snowden was a high school dropout who contributed to the Ron Paul for president campaign. That was enough to get him jobs at the CIA and NSA.

As we noted at the time, de Blasio didn’t disavow his communist background once it came to light. However, he did still insist—to much laughter—that his trip to Cuba was a “honeymoon.”

Obama decided to cover up, at least in some respects. He concealed as just “Frank,” the identity of a Communist Party operative who mentored him during his growing up years in Hawaii. Analyst Trevor Loudon discovered the real identity of “Frank,” and we confirmed it.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obama signals he’s ‘pulling a fast one’ on Americans for illegal aliens

by on September 13th, 2014

Presidents Barack Obama and his minions, such as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, are all but out-and-out telling American voters that they are preparing to “pull a fast one” on the nation by waiting until after election day to implement Obama’s immigration plan by fiat, according to a number of critics in law enforcement and immigration reform organizations. Obama’s White House chief of staff promised Latino congressmen in a closed meeting on Thursday that Obama will act on his own by the end 2014.

President Obama spent the week assuring immigration activists and illegal aliens that he still plans to fundamentally change the immigration system and go as far as he can under the law as he understands the law. “That means Obama is going to do what he pleases, U.S. Constitution be damned,” warns former police officer and public safety director Jan Kirby.

“This administration treats the Constitution as if it were a license to do whatever they feel is good for the country even if a majority of Americans oppose their actions to give upwards of 11 million lawbreakers a very Merry Christmas this year,” said Kirby.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough allegedly told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that they shouldn’t blame Obama since the request to “hold off” on his immigration plan by fiat is a result of squawking by Senate Democrats who may lose their seat if they go along with Obama’s illegal alien giveaway.

After the meeting with Latino lawmakers, McDonough briefed reporters saying, “It was good to catch up with the caucus and underscore to them our continuing commitment to resolve the challenges with our broken immigration system and underscore to them that the president will act on this before the end of the year.”

Law enforcement and immigration reform officials see this as the Democrats telegraphing that once they are safely ensconced in office, they will push for amnesty for their future voting block, according to several police officials such as Iris Aquino, a Hispanic police officer. “We spend billions of dollars on border security and immigration enforcement and for what? Border security is an illusion and immigration enforcement is a game of Russian Roulette without the bullet,” she quipped.

After the meeting, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, visibly angry, said, “No more excuses. I don’t care what senator is dangling in the wind, I don’t care what Republican proposal is being put forward, I don’t care what happens, we are moving forward. The holiday season must be a season of blessings for millions of undocumented families across America.”

Gutierrez is the congressman who called Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents the “Gestapo,” and regularly denigrates Border Patrol agents, according to a 2011 Examiner news story. “He is more interested in the welfare of lawbreaking illegal aliens than the American citizens who are losing their childrens’ inheritance,” said Jan Kirby. “The fact is Obama and the left-wing of his party want to pull a fast one on voters.

Click to continue reading “Obama signals he’s ‘pulling a fast one’ on Americans for illegal aliens”
Go straight to Post

Breaking: British hostage beheaded by ISIS terrorists in video

by on September 13th, 2014

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria released another disturbing video on the Internet Saturday evening they stated “showcases” the beheading of British national David Haines, an aid worker who volunteered to help victims of the terrorist conflict

In the video created by ISIS, a masked Islamist with a British-sounding accent addresses the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron, before appearing to brutally slice David Haines’s head off of his body. The 44-year-old Scottish citizen had been abducted in 2013 while working for a French agency NGO (non-governmental agency). Earlier on Saturday, Haines’ family begged the captors of the father of two to make contact and discuss the death threat..

The video, which is just as disturbing as the beheadings of the two American journalists — James Foley and Steven Sotloft — shows Haines kneeling in the sand wearing an orange jumpsuit, just as Foley and Sotloft did. The terrorist threatens Britain for helping to arm Kurdish forces in Iraq who are battling the Islamic State.

Meanwhile in the African nation of Uganda, police reported that they uncovered a terrorist plot by Somalia’s al-Qaida ally Al Shabaab to attack the United States Embassy in Kampala.

The U.S. embassy staff had warned U.S. citizens earlier on Saturday to stay in their homes while police conduct a counterterrorism dragnet in search of the suspected terrorist cell. Ugandan police say they have already made several arrests.

Go straight to Post

You know that regulations have gone too far when the FDA has to regulate wheelchairs

by on September 13th, 2014

This young man has helped design a computerized wheelchair that allows users to better control how the wheelchair operates.  It sound like a great idea.  But in listening to this piece at the WSJ I was surprised that the FDA had to approve the wheelchair before it could be produced.  Is the FDA soon going to regulate any type of chair that the disabled might sit in?  What happens if someone with disabilities sits in an unapproved chair?  Will the FDA SWAT team descend on the house? 

Go straight to Post

Another example of women being more risk averse then men?: Scottish polls on independence

by on September 12th, 2014

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin