Tuesday, June 26, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


OSHA targets shooting range

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a citation, along with a proposed fine of $111,000 fine (OSHA press release here), against Illinois Gun Works–a gun store and gunsmith business which has a shooting range and teaches safety classes. HT Instapundit and David Codrea. In a November 2009 article for the NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom, I warned about the dangers of President Obama’s nomination of David Michaels as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (head of OSHA), based on Michaels’ well-established record as an anti-gun advocate.
Many of alleged OSHA violations at the safety training range involved noise exposure for the instructors. Among OSHA’s suggestions were to eliminate training in “larger caliber” handguns such as “9 mm Luger and/or .45 Colt”  and substitute “handguns of smaller caliber,” such as .22LR. And “Prohibition of any shotguns and/or rifles firing in the firing range.” (p. 6). In other words, eliminate training for all firearms except those which are least likely to have the stopping power to be effective for self-defense. And ensure that the range can never provide students with personal instruction in the use of the firearms which constitute the vast majority of firearms which people actually own.
Among the “violations” noted in the citation: An instructor on the range wore Howard Leight Impact Sport Electronic Earmuffs, which allegedly provided insufficient noise protection. (p. 11). I’ve never used the Howard Leight brand, but I have used electronic muffs from Peltor and from Dillon. Electronic muffs are the perfect choice for hearing protection and range safety, especially for an instructor. When the muffs detect a sound spike, they instantly shut down, reducing the noise to a comfortable level. Unlike passive muffs, electronic muffs do not block sound at other times, so it is much easier for the instructor to communicate with students, and to hear everything going on in the area. Indeed, normal sounds (but not gunshots) can be amplified by the muff’s electronics, if the user so chooses.
My Peltor muffs have a Noise Reduction Rating of 19 decibels, while the Howard Leight muffs used by the Illinois Gun Works instructor had a NRR of 22db. I have previously used passive muffs (consisting of foam padding around the ears, with no electronics); passive muffs with a NRR in the low 20s allow more sound than I want, and I find that for passive muffs, a NRR of 29 or higher is much better. However, whatever the rated NRR of the electronic muffs, I can tell you that electronic muffs are far superior at sound reduction compared to passive muffs with much higher ratings. My Peltors with a NRR of 19db make gunshots much quieter than do my passive muffs with a NRR of 30db. Yet Illinois Gun Works is being fined because an instructor used superior hearing protection.
Here’s another violation: “A gun range instructor conducting shooter instruction was observed reaching down on the range floor to collect a loaded handgun cartridge. The employee was not wearing any hand protection such as gloves. The gun range floor was contaminated with lead. The gun had misfired and it required manual cycling of the barrel slide to remove the defective round which then fell on the gun range floor.” (p. 22). This is absurd. Range floors are necessarily going to have lead dust on them. In the course of live fire instruction, there are inevitably going to be some misfeeds, which result in a round falling to the floor. You don’t leave live ammunition lying on the floor. And if you’re going to be helping students clear misfeeds (step 1: press the small button which releases the magazine so that it drops out of the gun), you can often do so better with bare hands with gloves. After any time on the shooting range, it is essential to wash hands thoroughly with cold water. The notion that picking up a round from the floor is some kind of special danger is ridiculous.
One of OSHA’s suggestions for reducing instructor exposure to lead (p. 26): require the use of ammunition without lead primers and/or without lead bullets. But if you’re teaching people how to use the guns which they actually own, those people need to use the kind of ammunition that they will actually shoot. Firearms can perform quite differently with different types of ammunition. Semi-autos in particular may have a much higher rate of misfeeds with one type of ammunition than with another; one of the important variables in this is how strongly the user holds the grip (a lighter grip can increase misfeeds, but a grip that is too tight can reduce accuracy). The best way for a user to find out which ammunition works most reliably with her particular gun, accounting for the way she actually holds it, is to try different types of ammunition. And it’s all the better if those tryouts have the assistance of an instructor. The OSHA “safety” suggestion to use only unusual and expensive types of ammunition would harm gun user safety.
Another violation: employees used Hoppes #9 solvent for cleaning guns (Hoppes makes lots of gun cleaning material and accessories), but Illinois Gun Works had not relabeled each Hoppes bottle to list all the hazardous chemicals therein. (pp. 54-55). Gun cleaners have solvents, and so the cleaning should be done in a place with good ventilation. But it’s hard to see much practical benefit in requiring a store to put new labels on every one of the scores of Hoppes bottles which employees will use during the course of a year.
Not everything in the OSHA citation is as senseless as the items described above. And gun ranges are certainly not the first business in the United States to find themselves being punished by OSHA for things that have little or nothing to do with employee safety. However, if the heavy fine and the citation against Illinois Gun Works are followed by similar enforcement against other gun ranges, there may be many fewer ranges soon.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


UN Receives Agenda 21 Funding from World Governments and Corporations

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Susanne Posel
June 26, 2012
Governments and private sector corporations have pledged to fund the United Nations’ endeavors toward global governance with a generous $513 billion for Agenda 21 project that will restrict the movements of humans, perverse biodiversity and assist the UN in attaining their Millennium Development Goals.
Secretary-General Sha Zukang of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) said that over 692 monetary promises were given to the UN.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was thrilled that so much money had been given to the UN. “These huge numbers give a sense of the scale and growth of investment going into sustainable development. They are part of a growing global movement for change. Our job now is to create a critical mass, an irresistible momentum.”
Corporations like PepsiCo, and Virgin’s CEO Richard Branson project Carbon War Room are receiving $2 billion from the US government.
Jose-Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development , explained: “Without the private sector it’s not going to work. While governments put up the seed money, the big numbers come from the private sector. The private sector is looking at green growth with great interest, seeing it as an opportunity, as jobs, as investment.”
Academia and universities in places like Bejing, Sydney, Paris and New York will conduct and fund Agenda 21 projects on mega-city sustainability. Most of the $1 trillion allotted will go to projects in turbine, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy.
Manish Bapna, acting president of the World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington-based environmental research group, said: “There’s no doubt that Rio+20 fell short. But it’s a mistake to conflate what happened here with what’s happening on the ground. You just need to look beyond the walls of the conference to find real-world examples of action.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council will target specific commitments concerning environmental advocacy that is intended to coerce the public into making the much needed rally cry for the new sustainable changes to our lives that the global Elite want to implement.
Bjorn Lomborg, professor at Copenhagen Business School, admonishes the follow-through records of governments as “very poor” and says they should be made to follow the recommendations set out at the conference in Rio. Lomborg explains that the UN has turned to corporations to help them.
Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State supports the incorporation of the Agenda 21 movement. She remarked that “sustainability won’t happen without business investment. Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face, from climate change to persistent poverty to chronic energy shortages. That’s why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships.”
As far as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned, the money from corporations and governments cannot come at a better time. Ki-moon claims that “words must translate into action” with regard to moving the environmental governance agenda forward.
Ki-moon says that since the first UNCSD, the incremental slide toward total global governance has spawned UN conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification, as well as the Agenda 21 blueprint for sustainable development, yet “progress has been too slow – we have not gone far enough down the road. We are now in sight of a historic agreement – the world is waiting to see if words will translate into action, as we know they must.”
The Asian Development Bank , one of 8 international development financial institutions have agreed to give the UN $175 billion for sustainable transportation schemes to be built and running within 10 years.
Holger Dalkmann, of the WRI, believe that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically cut by the controlled utilization of sustainable transport to replace private cars to ensure “cleaner air, less congested roads, and safer transportation.”
Businesses must be balancing costs with sustainability in order to continue doing business. Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister calls this practice “a false economy” and demands transparency from British corporations.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, says that corporate power must be merged with the UN’s sustainable development goals if they are to be successful.
Governments like Russia, the Middle Eastern Nations and Latin America have been ruled as opposing the UN’s Agenda 21 policies.
Redirecting cash flow toward under-developed nations in a huge money laundering scheme is what the UN are planning. Endorsing green economies as defined by the UN’s standards are being forced upon South African nations right now.
Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University and special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly suggests that: “Those of us who look at this day in, day out know that many poor countries need that kind of help. And it does not do any good to cite large ambitious promises many years out, and then behind the scenes to say ‘we’re not going to talk about how they’re going to be fulfilled.”
Lisa Jackson, administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affirmed that the US is committed to the UN’s Agenda 21 and the “green economy” that is required to sustain the scheme.
Brundtland explains that governments should work more closely with the powerful corporations to synergize “our political system, corporations, businesses and people who have economic power influence political decision-makers – that’s a fact, and so it’s part of the analysis.”
The UN is currently fine-tuning their UN climate agreement that will be ushered in at the “next Copenhagen” conference. It is there that the world will see the unveiling of legal force, corporate influence and the march toward global governance called Agenda 21.
Susanne Posel’s post first appeared on her blog, Occupy Corporatism.


Posted by BH

The Moment an Entire Wedding Party Falls Into a Lake After Dock Collapses While Taking PicsWeddings are meant for lasting memories, and this will certainly be one of those.

On Saturday, Eric Walber and Maegan McKee were tying the knot in Michigan. They decided to get some wedding pictures on a dock jetting out into a local lake. But as the wedding party stood there, the dock started to tilt. And that’s when it gave way:
Wedding Party Falls Into Lake After Dock Crashes
Wedding Party Falls Into Lake After Dock Crashes
Wedding Party Falls Into Lake After Dock Crashes
Wedding Party Falls Into Lake After Dock Crashes
The video is even more amazing:


The photographer who captured the video offers more details:
The day started out great…beautiful sunshine, gorgeous wedding party, pictures, details, everything in place. Then we headed off to the reception at Bay Pointe Inn on Gun Lake. We had a lovely dinner and were ready for dancing. But just before dancing, the bride and groom wanted a picture taken with their entire bridal party out on the dock. It was a beautiful setting for it! That is until the dock came loose! And the entire bridal party plunged into Gun Lake! The best part was that even though dresses, tuxes and cell phones might have been ruined, everyone’s spirits were not. They were all able to laugh it off and have a fantastic time. The bride changed into her rehearsal dress for the remainder of the evening
“I saw the thing starting to tilt, and I’m like, ‘Oh, yup, this is going to happen,’” Eric told WOOD-TV.
“I came up laughing,” Maegan added. “I was like, ‘Oh, man, that really just happened. I can’t believe that actually just happened.”
“Your wedding party falls into a lake at your reception. You can’t plan that,” she said laughing.

Have We Found A Conservative Utopia? CHECK IT OUT ?

 Posted by BH

‘Real News From The Blaze:’ Have We Found A Conservative Utopia?

 Do you live in a city that leans toward nanny-statism? Perhaps you need a move to Sandy Springs,Georgia, an Atlanta suburb that has become a test case for pro-business conservative living. The town is an example of what would happen if you privatize EVERYTHING. Road repair, emergency call centers, permit services, city engineers–nearly everything but the education system, police and fire departments are outsourced to private firms. With local governments in budget crises and public sector unions in defense across the country, the balance sheet of Sandy Springs is in the black. The New York Times reports on the influences of one of Sandy Springs’s founders and architect-in-chief Oliver W. Porter:

After an election in 2004, both houses of Georgia’s legislature were controlled by Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.
“It was like a dog that’s been chasing a train for years and finally catches it,” Mr. Porter says. “The question was, What do I do with it now?”
As a fan of Ronald Reagan and the economist Friedrich Hayek, Mr. Porter came naturally to the notion that Sandy Springs could push “the model” to its nth degree. His philosophical inclinations were formed by a life spent in private enterprise, and cemented by a visit to Weston, Fla., a town that had begun as a series of gated communities.
Porter went on to say that he sees Sandy Springs as a model for cities around the country facing bankruptcy. City Manager John F. McDonough joined “Real News” Monday to discuss the allocation of government services Sandy Springs, and how existing cities in crisis can move toward the the Sandy Springs model:


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Vietnam Veterans Outraged Over Navy Christening Of USS Jane Fonda

| June 23, 2012 | 55 Comments
Washington, DC – Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a joint statement today condemning the U.S. Navy over the launch of its newest warship, the USS Jane Fonda.
“Without getting into Ms. Fonda’s activities during the Vietnam War, we feel that it is highly inappropriate to name a warship after an actress with no ties to the military,” said James Mitchell, a spokesman for both groups.
The ship’s name, which had been kept under wraps until right before the launch, was revealed yesterday at a star-studded event presided over by Ms. Fonda.
Ms. Fonda made a statement prior to the launch, saying, “I dedicate this ship to the brave men who fought and died in Vietnam, especially those in the 66th Viet Cong Regiment.”
The actress is extremely unpopular among some military groups for her activities during the Vietnam War, such as posing for propaganda pictures with North Vietnamese soldiers, referring to American prisoners of war as “hypocrites and liars”, and more recently cutting the line at a Target in front of a guy wearing an American flag t-shirt.
American warships, traditionally named after states, cities, and posthumous military heroes, have increasingly been named after living figures ever since 1998, when the Republican-controlled Congress named 18 warships in a row after former President Ronald Reagan.
In recent years, the Navy has come under fire for its practice of naming ships after controversial individuals, such as congressional representatives John P. Murtha and Gabrielle Giffords, and civil rights activists Cesar Chavez and Medgar Evers.
When reached for comment, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said that there was no actual law over ship naming conventions.
“Plus, I really liked Barbarella,” Mabus added.
The Fonda will form part of the newly-activated Eighth Fleet, built around the aircraft carrier Hillary Rodham Clinton (CVN-80), and destroyers Family Guy, Lady Gaga, and Trayvon Martin.
UPDATE – The US Navy has denied any connection between the naming of the Fonda and recent negotiations with Vietnam over basing American ships out of Cam Ranh Bay.  Navy officials have confirmed however that Cam Ranh Bay will be the Fonda‘s first port of call and Vietnamese Minister of Defense Phung Quang Thanh was overheard commenting how his country would, “love ship long time.”


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Supreme Court Upholds Key Part Of Arizona Immigration Law, Strikes Down Rest

US Supreme Court room SC 300x225 Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona immigration law, strikes down rest

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the justices affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over immigration policy.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, wrote the opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, saying the entire law or most of the law should have been upheld.
In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the federal government’s “power to determine immigration policy is well settled.” But he also showed concern for what he described as Arizona’s outsize burden in dealing with illegal immigration, seeming to sympathize with the state’s decision to butt in on immigration enforcement. “Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful im­migration,” he wrote. “Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year.” But, ultimately, the justices found that Arizona cannot mete out its own state punishments for federal immigration crimes.
“Arizona may have under­standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy wrote in the opinion’s conclusion.
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. Kennedy did not rule out that these checks may be implemented in an illegal way, which means more lawsuits may be forthcoming.


Posted By Woody Pendleton



Supreme Court building 2 SC Supreme Court insults America With Latest Decision

This morning, we have once again been reminded that our system of checks and balances no longer functions for the good of the American people.
Nine lawyers in the Supreme Court, hiding behind legalese written by other lawyers, has decided that Americans, through our various states, have no right to either enforce the sovereignty and security of our borders or demand that the federal government’s lawyers do so.
We don’t count in the cynical view of the lawyers who have wormed their way into controlling our lives essentially “because WE say so.” Oh, they claim the United States Constitution sanctions and supports their denial of our rights of self-defense, but the truth is they have stolen away the power of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by bowing to claims that what is abundantly obvious is not at all obvious. In effect, the Supreme Court has cynically asked us: “Who are you going to believe: us or your lying eyes?”
To say this was not a political interpretation of law twisted to favor those who would erase our borders and open the floodgates of the world to our midst is the type of infuriating insult we have to take with us as we vote to correct what has happened to our government from top to bottom. This decision ought to be carried like a “bloody shirt” by every American who is alarmed by the ever-quickening pace of the destruction of our freedoms.
They have reduced our lives to a children’s game of tag as the Supreme Court, acting as egalitarian school yard monitors, admonish us to “Play nice with the new children!”
Well, we don’t want to “play nice with the new Children!” We want to kick them the hell out of our country – a county OUR forefathers risked their lives to build and gave their blood to preserve.
The Supreme Court has made it very clear they don’t give a damn what we want. They have told us we MUST share the bounty of America with people only interested in taking from us whatever they can grab. The Supreme Court has told us illegal aliens deserve “their fair share of America” based solely on their presence in our country. How stupid! How infuriating! How deserving of an electoral landslide to correct this injustice!
If ever there was a moment for those who shy away from voting with the tired old “Oh I never vote because it makes no difference anyway” to grasp the danger all of America has been put in by this decision, that time has come.


Posted by BH

~~~~ ~~~~
One thing about Boston: the city loves its Red Sox baseball. The president learned that the hard way on Monday during a fundraiser.
While trying to connect with the crowd, Obama thanked the city for recently dealing one of its beloved stars — Kevin Youkilis — to his hometown Chicago White Sox. It didn’t go over well:
“Finally Boston, I just want to say, thank you for Youkalis.” The crowd booed.
“I’m just saying, he’s going to have to change the color of his socks,” the president said laughing.
“I didn’t think I was going to get any boos out here,” he said. “I should not have brought up baseball, I understand, my mistake, my mistake, you got to know your crowd.”
UPDATE: Press Secretary Jay Carney tried early in the day to spin the incident by saying that “(A)nyone who knows Boston, knows the Red Sox and anyone who was in that room last night knows that the preponderance of people shouting in response to what the President said about Kevin Youkilis were saying ‘Yoooook and not Booo’ for God’s sake.”
But later he admitted (after being confronted about the official White House transcript noting the “boos”) that even if that was true, there were some “boos”


Posted by BH



Posted by bH


By Greg Evensen
June 26, 2012
It is our fault folks. We ignored all of the symptoms. When America needed us the most, we were nowhere to be found. And now, we push the ball of blame around like a rotten onion. So, where have we come to? Irrelevance and oblivion. Welcome to the New World Order and Obama’s dictatorship. Most in and out of the church just flat out don’t care. That is why we have Obama in the first place.
This week I received the following letter. It is replicated here exactly as I got it. My response follows. It explains precisely why we are where we are today and how any hope for a “new” America is tragically non-existent.
Hi Greg,
“I just love listening to you and Pastor Butch on the radio. Last week, I spoke in ----------- at ----------- ---------- Church. We had a great time! I heard you say that you were going to ------------- also. I pray for the mighty move of the Holy Spirit in His power in your ministry down there!
I am from -------------------, --------, and am a pastor at the ------------- Community Church. I called you earlier today and wanted your point of view. What was going through the Founding Father’s minds that they would go to war with Great Britain for their freedom? Why would their liberty and freedom be more important to them than someone else’s life? Tying right to our nation today: Would our Founding Fathers be saying, “Enough is enough” and go to war again?
A friend asked me that question the other day and neither of us felt like our history education was good enough to have a good/complete answer. I hope you can see the intent of my questions and have some good answers. Thank you very much!
Pastor -----
Dear Pastor ----
The Founders knew that kingly dictatorship is not moral, nor free. It is certainly not spiritual freedom either.
They knew that the Pilgrims and the Puritans came here to seek the freedom they could not find in England, so they sought it here as a mission field. We have lost all connection to that understanding, especially in the pulpits of America. It is now about not offending anyone----just butts and bucks. The Founder’s freedom and indeed our freedom today is contingent upon the willingness of some to defend freedom with their lives. Many talk, few act.
Your first question is almost chilling in its detachment from any cognitive understanding about the depth to which those men clearly understood the price of their desire for absolute liberty. It also explains the selfish and deplorable condition of our citizenry at the hands of an ignorant school system and church. How could one contemplate even asking that first question? Nothing in written history suggests that the Founder’s assumed their lives were more important than others, nor that they were unwilling to put their names, lives, fortunes, sacred honor, families, futures and all else on the line for many in the colonies who were ignorant, lazy and unwilling to secure sovereignty for generations yet unborn, just like millions in America today. The Founders were realists. They knew that throughout all of history, people had to stand for an ideal that was righteous and fight unto death if need be to defend it. Only in our generation, have we been so stupidly maligned to believe that freedom just continues to be free for the asking, like government checks and the daily moral outrage of your “free” choice. Are we so ignorant of sacrifice that we ask that kind of question??
Would our Founder’s have said “Enough is enough and go to war again? The short answer is---absolutely, yes—and they would have done so several times between 1789 and now. For those who have used, abused, neglected and defamed America with their sin, foul lives, and ignorant knowledge of history’s catalog of right and wrong, there is of course, a different answer. Drugs, corruption, abortion, homosexuality, I will not dignify it by even stipulating its context. We live daily with its truth, reality, and tragic consequences.
I believe they would have fought with the Confederacy to overturn outrageous tariffs imposed on the commerce from the south. They would have done so after the debasement of the value of silver in the 1880’s.
They would have most certainly gone to war to stop the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th amendment, the 17th


Posted By  Woody Pendleton


The Washington Times Online Edition

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.
“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.
But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.
Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.
On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.
The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.
On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
View Entire Story

Feds Trying to Emasculate Border Patrol

Posted by bh

Feds Trying to Emasculate Border Patrol

The Obama administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, has been apparently running a non-public "in-your-face" campaign in addition to the myriads of public ones intended to install a fascist-socialist dictatorship under the leadership of The One.

This from the Border Patrol union web site

"Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.
These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of "if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out". Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.
It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.

Welcome to the New Patrol.

‘Obama Truth Team’ Orders Website Shut Down

Posted by BH

A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign’s ‘Truth Team’, according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was “maliciously harmful to individuals in the government.”
Hagmann, CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., a private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients, was given 48 hours by GoDaddy to find a new home for his website before it was deleted.
Hagmann was told the reason for the shut down was because the website featured “morally objectionable” material. After GoDaddy refused to identify the complainant, only saying that it was not “any official government agency,” further investigation by Hagmann revealed that the order came from a group tied to Obama campaign headquarters.Speaking with the chief investigator in the GoDaddy Abuse division, Hagmann discovered, “Ultimately it was found that the complaint originated ostensibly with a group associated with the campaign to re-elect Barack Hussein Obama.”
Turning to his contacts within government, Hagmann then spoke with another source who confirmed that the ‘Obama Truth Team’ was responsible for the shut down order.
 Read More at By Paul Joseph Watson.
Posted By Woody Pendleton


Top secret: $80B a year for food stamps, but feds won’t reveal what’s purchased

Americans spend $80 billion each year financing food stamps for the poor, but the country has no idea where or how the money is spent.
Food stamps can be spent on goods ranging from candy to steak and are accepted at retailers from gas stations that primarily sell potato chips to fried-chicken restaurants. And as the amount spent on food stamps has more than doubled in recent years, the amount of food stamps laundered into cash has increased dramatically, government statistics show.
But the government won’t say which stores are doing the most business in food stamps, and even it doesn’t know what kinds of food those taxpayer dollars buy.
Coinciding with lobbying by convenience stores, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program in conjunction with states, contends that disclosing how much each store authorized to accept benefits, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), receives in taxpayer funds would amount to revealing trade secrets.
As a result, fraud is hard to track and the efficacy of the massive program is impossible to evaluate.
As the House debates the once-every-five-years farm bill, the majority of which goes to food stamps, there is a renewed and fervent call from a broad spectrum of camps that the information — some of the most high-dollar, frequently requested and closely held secrets of the government — be set free.
“We can’t release it based on federal rules. If it were up to us, I wouldn’t have a problem releasing the information. It’s taxpayer money,” said Tom Steinhauser with the division of benefit programs for the Virginia Department of Social Services.
The District said it would be illegal to tell the newspaper how many food stamp dollars were flowing to each local vendor, but first offered to sell The Washington Times the information for $125,000.
“Why don’t you just pay the charges? Your paper has a lot of money,” said David Umansky, spokesman for the District’s chief financial officer.
Told that the newspaper would not pay, the CFO’s office then said that only JP Morgan, to which it contracted out operations, had access to the store totals and that the office had never looked at them. After six months of the local government attempting to extract the information from JP Morgan, the District finally said that releasing the information would be illegal.
States instructed not to tell
Maryland denied The Times’ request for data under the Freedom of Information Act, saying the information belonged to the federal government, which instructed states not to release it.
Legislation seemingly designed to protect the industry goes so far as to say that anyone who releases the amount of food stamp dollars paid to a store can be jailed.
Profiting from the poor’s taxpayer-funded purchases has become big business for a mix of major companies and corner bodegas, which have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the USDA to keep the money flowing freely.
The National Association of Convenience Store Operators alone spends millions of dollars on lobbying yearly, including $1 million in the first quarter of this year.
View Entire Story
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...