When the accolades are bestowed there will be no one more deserving than that one voice on the radio.

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

May we soon know her name, may she get the praise and thanks she very much deserves.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/auroras-anonymous-hero/?singlepage=true

She was nowhere near the Century 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado, early Friday morning.  She didn’t confront the killer or stanch any wounds or drive any of the injured to the hospital.  She didn’t wade through the wave of panicked, fleeing people to enter that gas-filled auditorium and bring order to the chaos.  She did none of these things, yet she should be counted among the heroes of that horrible night.  She was the calm voice when one was most needed.

I’ve searched the news stories about the shooting but haven’t discovered her name, so I hope she’ll forgive me for referring to her simply as the police dispatcher.  It was at 12:39 a.m. local time when she put out the first call for police to respond to the theater.  “Three-fifteen and Three-fourteen,” she said, addressing the two units she was dispatching, “for a shooting at Century Theaters, 14300 East Alameda.  They say somebody’s shooting in the auditorium.”  She soon came back on the air to provide more information that had come in over the telephone.  “There is at least one person that’s been shot but they’re saying there’s hundreds of people just running around.”  As we now know, that didn’t begin to describe what was happening.

Among cities of its size – about 325,000 people live there – Aurora is one of the safest.  The FBI reports that in 2010 there were but 1,443 violent crimes reported to police there, including 23 criminal homicides.  Shootings, though not unheard of, are rare in Aurora, and indeed the police radio traffic, as can be heard listen here, was light and routine in the minutes before the first shot was fired at the theater.  Given what was to follow, the dispatcher might be forgiven for losing her composure.

She never did, not for a moment.

Every cop knows the frustration of having a dispatcher on the frequency who is not quite up to the task.  The slightest delay in processing a request for assistance or information on a license plate or the details of a suspect’s description will have a cop grinding his teeth and pounding on the dashboard of his patrol car.  It is not a job that just anyone can handle.  I was a young rookie cop when my training officer took me to the LAPD communications center, then located in the old Parker Center headquarters building in downtown Los Angeles. It was important for me, he said, to see how difficult a dispatcher’s job was. It hasn’t gotten any easier, even as the technology has advanced with computers replacing the handwritten cards that once were used to log radio calls and track the status of police units. But one thing in the dispatcher’s job has remained constant even as the tools have changed: the need to remain calm while dealing with people who are not.

Officers responding to the shooting call in Aurora were met with pandemonium. Some encountered wounded victims at locations half a mile apart on the outer perimeter of the mall where the theater is located. Those arriving at the theater found an even more chaotic scene. As the siren of the fire alarm siren sounded, hundreds of people were running this way and that, some of them bleeding from gunshot wounds.  Several different officers radioed in with reports of what they had found at different locations in and around the theater building. Quite understandably, the emotions of some of those officers were running high, as evidenced by their radio broadcasts. The wounded were seemingly everywhere, and none of the officers knew if the shooting had stopped, how many shooters there might be, or what their descriptions were.  Given the scale of the carnage, they must have assumed they were dealing with more than one.

As the information flowed from the officers to the dispatcher, as the requests for police and rescue personnel to respond to one location and then another and another accumulated with maddening speed, as the anguished voices of the wounded filtered over the radio, this remarkable woman processed it all as calmly and efficiently as if she dealt with this sort of thing every night of her life.  She communicated with her officers, with the fire department, and, as the scale of the incident became apparent, with officers from Denver and the other surrounding cities that sent people to help.

With the capture of the suspect at the back door of the theater, things became only marginally less complicated. Were there others? An officer broadcast information on a possible suspect wearing a white-and-blue plaid shirt. Where was he?  Another officer passed along a report of a man running away dressed all in black and carrying a red backpack. Where had he gone? What was in the backpack?  Were there explosives in the theater set to kill the first responders?  No one knew the answers to these and the many other questions in the minds of those at the scene.

But even as those questions remained unanswered, there remained the task of attending to the dozens of wounded. Police and fire personnel responding to mass-casualty incidents are trained to establish a triage area where the wounded can be evaluated, with the most seriously injured taken to hospitals first.  Though this was done eventually, such was the initial confusion at the scene that some officers put wounded victims in their police cars and drove them to hospitals themselves.  Some even made repeated trips.

And through it all, one police dispatcher helped guide the massive response that would see hundreds of police and rescue personnel rush to the scene.  I’ve been a cop in a big city for more than 30 years. I’ve seen a lot of things but never anything quite like this.  From what I’ve seen it looks as though the Aurora Police Department acquitted itself well in handling this most challenging situation.  In due season the tales of heroism among the officers will emerge, but when the accolades are bestowed there will be no one more deserving than that one voice on the radio.  She could not have handled it better. May we soon know her name, may she get the praise and thanks she very much deserves.

“Jack Dunphy” is the pseudonym of an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.

Mike Huckabee say's we have a SIN PROBLEM ?

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

I guess Chuck has moved up from the Dating Game….. he may have a future as Secretary of Treasury.

Posted by BH

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

BOSTON MAYOR COMES OUT AGAINST BUISNESS BECAUSE OF THEIR MORAL STANCE ON MARRIAGE

Posted By The Circuit Rider

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Boston Mayor Attacks Private Business Because it Teaches Morality

posted on July 21, 2012 by Philip Hodges

259 Comments

359

Celebrities can mock and ridicule Jesus Christ, Christians, and the Bible, and it’s called freedom of speech or comedy. Christians can voice a biblical opinion, and it’s called “hate speech.” Now, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy is in trouble with pro-homosexual bloggers, celebrities and organizations who are calling on customers to boycott this “discriminatory” company for Cathy’s statements on marriage.
The mayor of Boston has gotten in on the controversy. “The Boston Herald has reported that Mayor Tom Menino is threatening to make obtaining the necessary licenses for a family business to operate ‘very difficult’ — not because the business’s products are controversial or hazardous, but because the privately-held company believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” (Source)

Here were Dan Cathy’s inflammatory comments:

“We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

A president of such a big company should not be making public and vocal stances on such controversial political issues, they say. He should just keep his opinions to himself . . . unless of course he comes out in favor of something liberal like same-sex marriage or socialized medicine. Then, he would be applauded by liberals, and the media would defend him from all those judgmental right-wing extremists.

But who are these outraged people seeking revenge from Mr. Cathy? Are they the same people that strut down main street in their gay pride parades, flaunting their carnal lifestyles for all to see with their painted-on clothes? Are they the same people who would throw blood on people, church congregations, pastors and pretty much anybody who “hurt” their feelings?

Are they the same group of people that lobbies for “homosexual education” in government schools where elementary students are taught about all manners of sexual debauchery? The same people who want to brainwash young kids in school into believing that homosexuality is perfectly healthy, and that it’s completely normal to have two dads or two moms?

The same people that want “gay” pornographic literature required reading for high school students? And are these the same people that talk a lot about peace, love, and tolerance?

What’s wrong with this picture? You have a homosexual lobby that wants to criminalize the act of making statements that hurt the feelings of homosexuals, but these same homosexuals, in the name of “free speech,” can go around terrorizing Christians for their statements and beliefs.

While the left “exposed” the restaurant chain owner as a gay-bashing homophobe, it also “exposed” him as a donor to “anti-gay” organizations like Focus on the Family. It seems that a business owner is not allowed to speak honestly about his beliefs; nor is he allowed to give his money to organizations that promote the concept of a family unit headed by a husband and wife. That’s bigoted, extreme, and intolerant. But it’s OK to use our tax dollars to promote the homosexual lifestyle. Something’s wrong with this picture.

 by the circuit rider:   The choices are being made by those who follow the devils path and those who choose God's path.  Tis the separation of the wheat and the chaff.  This has been prophesied all through the Bible and we are seeing it come to pass exactly as foretold.  WHAT IS YOUR CHOICE GOING TO BE??  YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH LONGER TO MAKE YOUR OWN PERSONAL DECISION.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6246/boston-mayor-attacks-private-business-because-it-teaches-morality/#ixzz21Oj7HiqK

PROOF! MSM IS CONTROLLED BY WH

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

BETWEEN THE LINES

Proof! Establishment media controlled

Exclusive: Joseph Farah scorches 'journalists' who are 'selling their ethical, moral souls'

Published: 4 hours ago

by Joseph FarahEmail | Archive

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.More ↓Less ↑

Follow author Subscribe to author feed

There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.

The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.

What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”

It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!

Even “progressive” WND columnist Ellen Ratner agrees – media under a spell!
Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:

• “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”

• “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”

• “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”

• “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”

• “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”

• “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”

• “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”

• “Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”

• “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”

I could go on and on. I urge you to read the entire story. This may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years.

What it means is this: When Americans read these reports – whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.

That’s how low the national press establishment has descended. And, when you read the story in its full context, you will understand that the concerns expressed about this practice by those submitting themselves to it are not ethical concerns. They are not concerns for the truth. They are concerns about their own convenience and for the loss of “color” in their stories.

Let me state what I hope is obvious to all reading this column: This sort of willing capitulation to government censorship was not the norm five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. This is a new phenomenon – chilling and alarming to an old-timer like me who would never agree to submit his copy for approval to politicians.

These so-called journalists are selling their ethical and moral souls for access to politicians. And this practice raises expectations by politicians that they can routinely manipulate the press to their advantage. That makes the job of real journalists – independent reporters faithful to their craft – even more difficult, because they will be shut out from access.
It reminds me of the fact that, just last week, WND was denied credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention. Why do you suppose what has become one of the largest and most influential news agencies in the country would be denied access to the convention floor? Simply because the Democrats know we won’t play by their rules of control like the members of the establishment press club.

All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.

It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.

2012 THE END?? SEVERAL OTHER CULTURES CONCUR

Posted By The Circuit Rider

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

2012 Doomsday: It's not just Mayan claim

Host of cultures predict end-time scenario this year

Published: 46 mins ago

by Joe KovacsEmail | Archive

Joe Kovacs, author of the brand-new No. 1 best-seller, "The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny", as well as the No. 1 best-seller "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told," is executive news editor for WND.More ↓Less ↑

 

Is the pope who follows Benedict XVI the final pontiff when Jesus returns to Earth?

An author investigating ancient prophecies is again sounding the alarm about numerous predictions suggesting 2012 could be the beginning of the “end of the age” spoken of in the Holy Bible.

Last year, WND reported on Tom Horn’s efforts to let everyone to know calendars besides the ancient Mayan one predict the demise of human civilization in 2012, and he claims a demonic plot bringing about the end date could be hiding in plain sight inside the U.S. Capitol.
He’s now continuing his effort to publicize the matter with speeches across the nation, providing more possible clues into when apocalyptic prophesies of the Bible might be fulfilled with the “Second Coming” of Jesus to administer the kingdom of God on Earth.
In his latest book titled “Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope Is Here,” Horn sheds light on ancient non-biblical prophecies from St. Malachy concerning the Catholic Church, and provides evidence the next pope, the one following Benedict XVI, is to be the final pontiff before the return of Jesus.
“As the legend goes,” says Horn, “Malachy experienced what is today considered a famous vision commonly called ‘The Prophecy of the Popes.’ The prophecy is a list of Latin verses predicting each of the Roman Catholic popes from Pope Celestine II to the final pope, ‘Peter the Roman,’ whose reign would end in the destruction of Rome.”
While the prophecy itself does not mention the year 2012, Horn says the Vatican’s Jesuit mathematician and codebreaker Rene Thibaut wrote 61 years ago it would be fulfilled in 2012, and he adds current events at the Vatican “certainly point to the soon fulfillment of this prophecy.”
When translated from Latin to English, the final segment of the prophecy reads: “In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the City of Seven Hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people.”
Horn also points to 19th century collection titled “Lectures on the Revelation” by Rev. William J. Reid, pastor of First United Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh, Pa., which were given over a period of time ending in March 1876.
An excerpt from one of the lectures published in 1878 attempts to determine the official start of the papal system, combining both temporal and spiritual authority, and states: “If it began in the year 752, and if it is to continue for one thousand two hundred and sixty years, then it is to be destroyed in the year 2012.”
“Keep in mind this was published in 1878!” exclaimed Horn. “What is it about this period of time we have entered? What is it about this period of time inaugurated in 2012 that has caught the attention of so many divergent traditions?”

The revelations about the final pope come in addition to Horn’s exhaustive research into the Mayan and other calendars in his previous book “Apollyon Rising 2012.”

CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE 

GUN CONTROL ONLY MAKES LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS DEFENSELESS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Gun Control Only Makes Law-Abiding People Defenseless

posted on July 21, 2012 by Gary DeMar

7 Comments

22

One of the missing elements of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting spree was the apartment of James Holmes. There is an abundant amount of news coverage describing how it was wired with explosives. The first person who entered the room would have been killed. The police need to be commended for some good reconnaissance work.

If the shooter planned for months to kill people and trip-wire his apartment, making the purchase of guns illegal would not have stopped him. He would have used explosives. They’re illegal, too. More people would have been killed because of the percussion effect – an explosive device going off in a small space.

If people want to kill other people, the law’s not going to stop them. Box cutters and airplanes brought down the Twin Towers. If word got out that ten to twenty percent of the population was carrying a firearm, I suspect that nut jobs and world-be terrorists would have second thoughts about going on shooting rampages. We might, however, see an up-tick in other types of killings.

Great Britain has strict gun control laws. Advocates of gun control believe that these laws cut down on violence and crime. Such laws only empower lawbreakers. Gun homicides were low in the United Kingdom even before gun control laws went into effect. This does not mean that there hasn’t been any gun violence since these laws went into effect in 1977.

“Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year [2002] a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.”

Gun control has had an impact elsewhere: a dramatic increase in other violent crimes. “For example, comparing London and New York, cities of very similar population and demographics, the rate of assaults and robberies is over six times as high, and 7 or 10 times nationwide (depending on statistic used).” Compared with the United States, “the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.”
The most recent riots in London indicate that lawless people will use any means at their disposal to force their wills on others. Three men were killed by an automobile, people were openly beaten in the streets, and business establishments were looted while others were burned. Store owners had no way of protecting their property. The people doing the looting, and they weren’t just the poor and disenfranchised (a millionaire’s daughter, a ballet student, a musician, an organic chef, a university graduate student, and a law student are just some of the types of people arrested), knew that they would meet little resistance.

“In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.”

So what does the law abiding citizen do? He shops on Amazon for baseball bats! He can’t buy guns, so he gets the next best thing, a metal version of the Louisville Slugger. In a 24-hour period, sales for baseball bats on Amazon UK rose by more than 6000 percent during the London riots in August of 2011.
Defenseless citizens were also buying police-style telescoping truncheons. (The spring-loaded ones are illegal.) The Guardian reported the following: “Amazon has removed several police-style telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons, baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting.”
So now, law-abiding citizens are even more defenseless. They can’t even order a baseball bat on line to protect themselves from roaming thugs. Maybe it’s time they whittle down their cricket bats. Paul Joseph Watson writes: “Just like gun control, banning baseball bats only disarms the public and creates victims. Criminals will always be able to acquire weapons of any description because they do not obey laws. Leaving Brits defenseless will only embolden the rioting hordes.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6252/gun-control-only-makes-law-abiding-people-defenseless/#ixzz21NBZCsdd

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Crime

Evil Returns to Colorado

• 
• Buck Sexton
• 
  

Buck Sexton is The Blaze's national security editor and a GBTV contributor. Before joining the Blaze, Buck served in the U.S. Intelligence Community for six […]

Buck Sexton is The Blaze's national security editor and a GBTV contributor. Before joining the Blaze, Buck served in the U.S. Intelligence Community for six years, specializing in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. He has field experience in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. Buck has a B.A. in Political Science from Amherst College. He is a native of New York City, where he currently resides.

[ x ]

buck@theblaze.com

Many will use words like horrific, appalling, and shocking to describe the shooting in Aurora last night. But there is another word that truly summarizes the shooting: Evil.
This was an assault on all of us, an attack on our common humanity. One man killed twelve completely innocent people and injured over 70, including an infant. Hundreds of lives have been shattered. All of this tragedy occurred because of the depraved, nihilistic acts of an evil individual.
Law enforcement will find more answers in the aftermath, but the indicators right now point to a lone wolf, acting out of a deep, depraved sense of internal rage. The specific motivation behind the attack is not yet known, if one exists, but it is likely to involve a mishmash of perceived injustices, blind hatred, and outright insanity. The already released videos of terrified victims fleeing the theater bring back immediate memories of the Columbine massacre in 1999.
Some observers in the media with poor judgment have already started to use this appalling massacre to score cheap political points. This speaks more to their character and judgment than any issue of policy. But apart from the far-too-soon posturing and political moralizing, some immediate reactions and analysis are warranted to help us understand this tragedy.
Based on the facts thus far, the perpetrator of this incident may have some psychological elements in common with Jared Loughner, the deranged shooter who killed six people and nearly took the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s in Tucson, Arizona in 2011. The suspect in Aurora– a 24-yeard old former medical student named James Holmes– fits easily into the profile of the cold, calculating psychopath.

All of the the alleged shooter’s tactics and planning fit into a narrative of pre-meditated, precision malice. Police report the shooter had multiple firearms on his person, including a rifle, shotgun, and pistols. Witnesses at the scene say he deployed a gas grenade before opening fire. He also has rigged his home with explosive booby traps that could take hours or even days for the Colorado authorities to clear.

This was not a man who snapped and committed atrocities in an a moment of unbridled fury. There are many signs that the suspect is a cold-blooded assassin, one who takes pleasure in his sadistic preparations and pride in planning a mass casualty event. All eyewitness accounts thus far depict a killer who took his time and had very specific intent for the carnage he inflicted.

There will inevitably be questions raised about “missed warning signs.” Many commentators have even brought up that the suspect was not on a terrorism watch list. That would seem unlikely to have applied in this case, as the suspect had no previous criminal history, or ties to terrorist groups. But with the news that the suspect’s mother told police, “you have the right person,” it is almost certain that tales will emerge of a man who was withdrawn from society, obtuse in previous statements, and deeply troubling to the few who knew him well.
But that will come in the days ahead. For now, we must tend to the wounded, the families of the deceased, and each other.

Americans are heart-broken, and must gather together for grieving and prayer. When faced with such evil, we turn to family, country, and God, with the unwavering belief that we are a country of kind, decent people, and we will heal and overcome this tragedy in time, together.

Buck Sexton is National Security Editor for TheBlaze.com and is a former NYPD Intelligence Division analyst.

THE LEFTS KNEE JERK REACTIONS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

• 
  

Townhall Columnists Derek Hunter

Knee Jerks: There's Nothing the Left Won't Exploit

• 
• Derek Hunter
  

Jul 22, 2012After he booby-trapped his apartment with explosives, James Holmes walked into a theater Friday night and opened fire on a crowd waiting to see the first showing of the new Batman movie. He shot scores and murdered a dozen. Holmes acted for reasons unknown, but his actions were pure evil.
His actions also were his alone.
It doesn’t matter if he was bullied as a kid, recently dumped or whatever else anyone comes up with as a possible motive. Nothing “caused” him to do this other than whatever evil lives inside him.

But that hasn’t stopped many progressive liberals in and out of the media from speculating wildly, and seemingly hopefully, as to his motives and his political affiliation. It hasn’t stopped them from using this event as a platform to score political points on the issue of gun control. It’s sickening … and typical.

George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross of ABC News started the speculation with the following exchange on Good Morning America:
GS to BR: “You found something that might be significant.” (Emphasis added)
BR: “There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, ah, page, ah, on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but this is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

The Jim Holmes Brian Ross “found” is a Hispanic man in his mid-50s, but he was associated with the Tea Party, so the story was simply too good to bother checking the facts. He’s a Tea Partier, therefore …

Ross later corrected his foolishness with a tweet saying “Earlier I reported incorrectly that the shooting suspect might be tied to the Tea Party. I apologize for the mistake.” But we still don’t know why Stephanopoulos thought this information “might be significant.”
What if he were? Does that make every Tea Party member a co-conspirator? Of course not, but that wouldn’t have stopped a lot of media members from reporting it as if it did. They’ve done it before. Who can forget that it was cross-hairs on a map on Sarah Palin’s website that caused psychopathic shooter Jerald Lee Loughner to go on his rampage in Tucson? And who can forget the media reaction when it was discovered he never saw Palin’s website and was, in fact, a Bush-hating anti-war zealot? That’s right … crickets.

On Friday, leftists immediately took to Twitter to blame Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Mitt Romney and conservatives in general. Blame was being flung everywhere except where it belonged – James Holmes.

What is it about leftists that causes them to immediately assume the worst of those with whom they disagree? What does it say about them that after the dust settles, much of the time, those who commit heinous acts actually share their political philosophy?

The former exposes the desperation and lack of character that surrounds a political philosophy that seeks to make you responsible for everyone but yourself. The latter says nothing about them as a whole because individuals are responsible for their own actions.

It’s our curse that we stay true to our philosophy while they will abandon any principle at any time to score points.

Not to be outdone, film critic Roger Ebert wrote in the New York Times:

That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

The theater in Aurora, of course, has a ban on guns, which law-abiding citizens observe. This is why no one shot back. Had someone been carrying a legal gun, who knows what would’ve happened?

But do we really need to make a case for gun control before any of the victims are buried? Salman Rushdie thinks so, tweeting that morning, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America.” Mr. Rushdie, who spent years in hiding from a “fatwa” placed on him by the Ayatollah Khomeini and enjoyed the protection of armed guards during much of that time, saw no irony or lack of tact in his tweet. He simply replied, “No, thank you” when journalists emailed him for further comment.

Mr. Ebert, on the other hand, lives in Chicago, a city that’s seen 27 gun-related murders this month alone while having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. You’d think he’d be aware of this, but pointing it out doesn’t advance his leftist agenda.

He’d rather all America become as “safe” as Chicago.

Ebert’s knee-jerk response not only expresses a complete disregard for our Constitution (nothing new for Democrats), it shows a lack of common sense and decency. Rushdie never has been known for his love of much beyond himself. The exchange between Ross and Stephanopoulos shows us just what mainstream media types think of those with whom they disagree.

But none of this left-wing exploitation of tragedy changes the fact that James Holmes acted alone, for reasons we’ll most likely never know nor understand. Even if he’d been a Tea Party member, the Tea Party would’ve been no more to blame than, say, President Obama for giving us an economy in which Holmes was unable to find work or succeed.
No government action ever will outlaw crazy or evil, and no ceding of liberty to government ever will stop an individual from perpetrating their sickness on innocent victims.

It just happens. And the person who does it is responsible.

 by wp:  We are beginning to realize a very strange fact; that if you are a political bureaucrat/politician/etc.  you live in a fantasy world that does not exist in reality.  Facts are what you say they are even without any confirming evidence.  A very obvious proof of this is our present government and its total commitment to an America that exists only in their minds.  The real life views of America's citizens have no bearing on this governments decisions.  THIS IN ITSELF OPENS THE DOORS FOR EVIL TO GROW.

WHY I CARRY A GUN EVERYWHERE I GO

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go

• 
• Doug Giles
  

Jul 22, 2012

•  

I would venture to guess that the folks filing in to see the latest Batman installment in Aurora, Colorado last Thursday evening didn’t figure on over 70 of them getting shot before the credits rolled. The last count I received before filing this column was 12 dead and 59 wounded. As the news starting pouring in about what happened in the theater this week when Satan’s spawn James Holmes donned Kevlar and a small battery of weapons and opened fire on an unsuspecting crowd, I kept thinking, “One fast-thinking and trained person who was armed/licensed with a concealed weapon could have stopped that SOB right in his tracks before the body count skyrocketed.”
Yep, the armed citizen could have either killed him, sent him running for cover, or at least diverted his fire away from the masses and toward their person. Some readers, no doubt, are saying, “Well that would be stupid. What if that citizen got shot trying to protect others?” To that I reply: Well, Dinky, if they would have been shot and killed at least they would have died a hero. Have you ever heard of the term “hero”?
The Aurora Dark Knight Massacre is exactly why I carry at least one gun everywhere I go—because crap always happens when you least expect it. That’s why, as responsible citizens and gun owners, we must always be ready and must always expect it because when it happens, it happens fast; if you’re not ready, you and others are screwed.
For instance, it’s a beautiful and quiet day on Miami Beach this morning. I’m drinking my coffee at an outdoor cafe, minding my own business while I work on this column and on my website. I don’t see any bath salt zombies on the prowl. There are no Trench Coat Mafia wannabes lurking around. There is no real foreseeable reason to carry a weapon. But I am. The reason? Well, I’m not omniscient. I’m just a dumb clunk living in a jacked-up world where med school students go bat crap crazy and shoot up normally peaceful places for inexplicable reasons. Therefore, I’m locked, cocked and ready to rock should some demented dill weed decide to strafe the local patrons sipping a cup of Joe.
For those who say, “Doug’s insane with all this concealed weapons crap. We should leave such affairs to the police,” allow me to point out that the theater was crawling with cops for the Batman opening to control the crowds. By the time the police got to the particular theater, it was all over. Blood was already running down the aisles and the gunman had already left the building. You, my friend, are your first responder … your first line of defense.
Look, stuff happens when and where you don’t think it’ll happen. My recommendation to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun—a fire-breathing dragon of a weapon. Get proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it. However, should you be in line at the grocery store, or at Chili’s eating a burger, or at a park playing football with your homies, and some James Holmes wannabe shows up carting an arsenal and quoting Kafka as he shoots kids … you’ll be ready. Simply find cover if you can, draw your weapon, take a fine bead, and double tap the center mass of the murderous jackass. Should he or she have a bulletproof vest on then pull your sight picture up to the perp’s noggin and shoot him or her in the head; it’ll explode like a watermelon. You’ll feel bad for a nanosecond. But then the cops and families will show up and thank you for putting Jack the Ripper down. The end.

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

What We Learn from Raw Unabated Evil

"Seeing the dramatic impact of what raw, unabated evil looks like, is not something we are often able to see," I said on national radio Friday afternoon. "But when we do, it is something that we must learn a great deal from." With the raging debates of public policy, cultural tolerance, political correctness, and all the other arenas that suck up the oxygen of what our media and attention tend to be saturated with, we seldom have the chance to see with such clarity the separation of truly what is good, and the horrors of absolute evil.

Friday morning at 12:39am Colorado time was one instance in which the curtain was pulled back and we were given that unfiltered view.

The troubled sketch that has been revealed of the shooter from that event is filled with conflicting stereotypes. He was described by officials from his undergraduate school as the "top of the top" academically. Friends from his high school years described him as someone who was very much involved in his church's youth group. His own mother--when initially confronted with the crude facts of the shooting--responded somewhat instinctively, that authorities, had "the right person" when suspecting her own son of such violence. He felt lonely, even desperate with a profile on an "adult" hook-up site. He loved science. He often rooted for the bad guys in comic book stories--likely emulating one in this very attack. And like so many, regardless of his intellect or his qualifications, struggled mightily to find work in the current economy.

There were also things about him that defied the stereotypes. He had no criminal past--his worst previous offense being a traffic violation. He even legally owned or purchased all of the firearms used in the Friday morning attacks.

In the end, we may yet find out a great number of additional things about the struggles, hurts, or inadequacies of his life. Yet nothing we will learn will answer the question of why he chose--this evil outcome--to inflict suffering and carnage on so many. (Some of which we are still figuring out. He gave up without a struggle, suggested to police that they go look for his other stockpiles in his apartment--fully expecting them to walk into his booby-trapped home and perhaps blow away an entire city block.)
Given that he injured and killed 71 people at the theater, with a goal of blowing up perhaps hundreds more, practical issues of justice emerge. I'm sure most decent Americans would have a hard time arguing against the death penalty for someone who was guilty of all this.
Other practical questions also haunt us. Questions like, "If theaters weren't considered a gun-free zone, would more people have survived?"
Yet at the end of this day, my thoughts return to the larger picture of what we saw--evil in it's rawest form.

So what do we learn, and how do we respond?

One of the common sense responses I am reminded of is that "in order for evil to succeed, all that is required is for good people to do nothing." For this reason alone, conceal carry laws should be the law of each state, each city, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If a law-abiding person is able to disarm a maniac--if necessary through the taking of his life, would not society be a safer place?

One of the most touching reminders I saw in great abundance is the heart of American compassion in action for their fellow man in light of such harsh tragedy, shock, and paralyzing realities. The stories of heroism are just starting to emerge, but those who kept their heads and helped calm those who were trapped in theater nine--who did not panic--but instead encouraged folks to get low, and remain calm--no doubt saved lives. In the days to come, as we learn even more about the friends and family members lost, from those who mourn, an entire nation will mourn with them. Church groups will bring food to their homes, friends will pray, hug, and weep with them, and healing will only begin the long process of recovery.

Lastly one of the most important truths I am forced to realize in light of this week's events is that the only thing that overcomes evil, is the overwhelming reality of good.

It is in all honesty the best argument there can be for the existence of God. God is good personified. And while there may be some who seek to blame Him for the individual choices of the shooter, there are already dozens who are telling their stories of nearly miraculous salvation from the shooter who got off dozens of rounds without reloading, and walked out without a scratch. He was in the aisle of the theater with them as bullets flew. He was on the floor with those who were shielding small children with their own bodies, and He was very near to the heart of the reported six year old girl who perished after enduring wounds in her knee, shoulder, and chest.
On the scale of human understanding there is no explanation that suffices to comfort those of us left behind.

But if good exists (which we have seen being poured out since almost the moment the shots began to be fired) then we must also recognize that there is a day of justice for the evil and those who advance that evil with no ounce of remorse.

Hopefully we observed the advice of President Obama and Governor Romney this weekend and held our children closer. Perhaps we darkened the door to a church for the first time in years.
Ironically we may have equally questioned God's ability to be in control, and simultaneously may have been more curious as to His existence all at the same time because of the tragic shooting.
Yet none of those things alter the very real existence and unchangeable reality that evil exists--we've seen it on our television screen for days now.

The equally true and verifiable reality is that good does as well.

Ultimately our society will suffer most when we no longer can differentiate between the two.

I pray and hope for that day to still be quite far off. 

 by  WP:    Unfortunately that day is closer than we know.  We look around us and see a distinct loss of moral teaching and GOD"s Commandments.  We have a government that advocates and pushes for the removal of God from our national and societal conciousness.  We seek for answers to why these things are happening and ignore the warnings all through GOD's Word that these are the results that happen when we reject God's involvement within our national and societal conciousnesses.  Evil exists!  And when we remove the presence of God from the table evil grows ever stronger and powerful.  We see the results within our government and look away rather than face it straight on and subdue it with God's help.

A FIRING SQUAD WITH NO BLACK HOODS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

A Firing Squad with No Black Hood

t is inevitable that talk of gun control will arise as a renewed national discourse following the Aurora, Colorado movie theater murders. I am thinking that this is perhaps the best time to reaffirm the Second Amendment canon. If James Madison’s reasoning cannot withstand examination during a time of testing, then it probably is not reasonable.

For perspective, I am writing this from my home in Colorado, about 25 miles from the movie theater where James Holmes shot 70 people early Friday morning. Columbine High School is also less than 15 miles from here. My company responded to a call by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office during the 1999 Columbine standoff to attempt network communications with people inside the school. The son of one of my colleagues lost the use of his legs in the Columbine shooting and I suspect that I will soon hear personal accounts from friends in Aurora with few degrees of separation from the theater attack. These shootings are not distant news items for me.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Arguments abound for qualifying the application of this ultimate individual right. The two strongest grounds for controlling personal gun ownership are death statistics and the implication that the Second Amendment was intended only for a standing army (militia).

The naive theorist will challenge NRA members with, “Would it not be preferable to surrender individual gun ownership in order to stop all this senseless violence?” The statistics flow from these believers with numbers of accidents, unsuccessful struggles with burglars, and the biggie -- 11,000 annual deaths from gunshot wounds. And I think that we err in responding directly to the faulty premise of their appeal.

The motivations for defending the right to individual gun ownership generally fall into three categories; personal protection, citizen defense against an oppressive state, and hunting. I am not a hunter. I don’t even fish. But I love taking frequent hikes into Pike National Forest, which borders the west side of my home. I am always accompanied by two border collies and a Ruger sidearm loaded with hollow-point bullets. I frequently come across the remains of deer and elk who were not as well protected against the Rocky Mountain’s very covert mountain lions.

I bought that portable hand gun so that I would be equipped to kill an animal if necessary while hiking. Twenty-four years ago, I also bought a tactical pump 12 gauge shotgun so that I would be equipped to kill a person. Over the course of three months in 1988, a man was breaking into my house frequently and unpredictably. He would not steal anything. Instead, he would leave twisted sexual messages directed at my wife and our ten-year-old daughter. I hated buying that shotgun and I dreaded the thought of violent confrontation. But, I was very willing to defend my family and our home. Fortunately, that situation was resolved without my having to deal with the trauma of shooting another human. While I have long been grateful for the right to quickly acquire a weapon when I needed one, I have since come to appreciate that America’s Founders were not primarily concerned with mountain lions and sexual predators when crafting the Bill of Rights.

The right / left political scale positioning for this issue is not easily recognizable. As in most partisan debates, the political leadership on the left usesmisdirection to leverage a more popular urgency that would result in the desired outcome. Rank and file leftists are single-minded with the expedient solution of eliminating personal weapons in order to eradicate violence against citizens. Leftist leadership, however, wishes to eliminate personal weapons in order to prevent the people from having the power to uprise against the state.

Virtually every historical figure of tyranny can be quoted as including gun control within their plan of nationwide citizen management. Centralized control is a basic element of the utopian formula, and specifically rejected by the band of revolutionists who signed on to the Second Amendment. These were the very souls who earlier signed a declaration that instructed future generations that, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I deeply value the right to protect myself and my family against predators, both animal and human. But neither of these is directly addressed in the Second Amendment. Madison’s original draft read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” The principle here is to maintain the distributed power of force in the collection of individual citizens. The preamble phrase in the final version shows the intent of a militia as differing from a standing state army.

The Third Amendment, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law,” seems obsolete without this context. It makes more sense when coupled with a proper understanding of the Second Amendment.

Of course I realize that maintaining due respect for the people’s right to bear arms does not directly address the horror of some lunatic shooting people in a movie theater, or students at Virginia Tech, or a Congresswoman at a shopping center. Nor does it speak to criminal acts of selfishness and desperation. Those crimes are appropriately addressed with self-protecting citizens, backed by well-trained and well-equipped law enforcement.

And we need to put a stop to the self-destructive practice of releasing bad actors to repeat their crimes on even more innocent victims. Regardless of whether he is found to be insane, James Holmes should face a firing squad with no black hood.

The appropriate response to the gun-control advocate who cites death statistics where gun ownership is allowed is to cite death statistics where gun ownership has been denied. With Second Amendment rights in the United States, there were 11,000 homicides using firearms in 2010. With no such rights in the former Soviet Union, the state murdered over 6,000,000 citizens annually. China topped out at 3,500,000 each year. And Germany exceeded 2,000,000 in annual murders during their Nazi era.

Individual firearms control is the sign of a misplaced fear.