Monday, July 23, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Studies show 'gun control laws' don't work, but 'concealed carry' permits do

As expected, the 'learned' Liberal elite [who are not up for reelection in November] began showing up on all of the weekend news programs, aided by their mainstream media allies, mindlessly barking about 'increased gun control,' in the wake of the theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado early last Friday morning.
For example, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg boldly urged Congress, via his "Twitter" account, to swiftly address a ban on certain weapons, according to a FOXNews article last Saturday, tweeting...
The shooting in Aurora is a horrific act of violence, and our thoughts go out to the innocent victims and their families. Our hearts are filled with sadness for the 12 people killed and the dozens wounded in this senseless act. We have to face the reality that these types of tragedies will continue to occur unless we do something about our nation’s lax gun laws.
Let's stop wasting time and start saving lives ... Congress must prioritize a ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
A Lautenberg aide reportedly echoed the Senator's plan to the Huffington Post,
If reports are correct and a high-capacity gun magazine was used to commit these awful murders, Senator Lautenberg will absolutely renew his effort to limit the availability of this dangerous firearm attachment.
Unfortunately, these emotional sentiments, passed around freely in the wake of high profile shooting tragedies like Columbine, Virginia Tech and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), have only political value--as they are void of any practical value.
In fact, they operate diametrically against their stated objective of 'eliminating' mass murders, according to a rigorous study of gun control studies conducted by Wake Forest University Economics Prof. John C. Moorhouse and his graduate assistant Brent Wanner, published in the Winter 2006 edition of the Cato Institute Journal, titled "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?"
The study found what simple common sense would derive--people kill people...not guns; which is akin to the popular phrase, 'If you took away all the guns from law abiding citizens--then only criminals would have guns...which would only result in having an unprotected citizenry.
The only provable correlations that were detected are also obvious and self-evident to anyone who watches the local evening news--the highest incidence of gun violence occurs in poor, minority-filled urban areas, where it is inflicted mostly upon each other.
However, an amazing, but expected correlation did appear in the research Moorhouse and Brent performed using the state statistics on per capita concealed weapon permit issuance and violent crime--an inverse correlation existed in virtually every case--meaning that where criminals 'knew' the citizens were most likely armed, violent crime occurred far less.
And, as far as making laws to thwart gun crime, they are generally asinine, useless or easily overcome by any fifth grader or action/adventure movie buff.
For example, Sen. Lautenberg's idea of prohibiting 'high capacity magazines,' can be overcome by either taping two, inverted smaller magazines together, or simply packing more magazines--if the victims are unarmed it would not make much difference in the end.
And after the above mentioned shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Republican New York Representative Peter King, who is considered a fairly bright man, once floated the bright idea of making it a crime to have a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal employee.
This idea was fraught with ridiculousness once it left his mouth.
Even if every federal employee were required to wear the same 'lime green' jacket all the time--so they could be easily and unmistakably identified as a federal employee--they are in motion all of the time and would probably cause this statute to be violated by their own actions.
Therefore, practically speaking, the only value these type of statutes could have are as 'add-ons' to the list of gun infraction charges--more than likely used posthumously for the victim.
Clearly, gun control law statutes are, for the most part, an incredible waste of time and money, and afford no more protection against violent crime than existing statutes against murder--they have not, and cannot, prevent the random, violent acts of individuals with firearms.
President Obama's hometown of Chicago is the most glaring example, as even with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country--they have long held the reputation for being one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.
Conversely, local TV news is replete with stories about violent criminals being stopped dead in their tracks by a properly-trained citizen, discharging rounds into them from their own firearm--as protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution and provided for under the 'Concealed Carry' and 'Stand Your Ground' statutes.
Copyright 2012 by Jeffrey Klein
"Stay informed to stay


Posted by WP 


'They needed help and they couldn't get it': 911 dispatcher recalls night of horror during Colorado movie theater shootings

Emergency dispatchers are often the first point of contact when tragedy strikes. Dealing with people in difficult situations such as shootings, home break-ins and fatal accidents are all part of the job.
But for Aurora, Colo., 911 dispatcher Kathie Stauffer, it took all she had to show strength on the outside -- all the while nervous on the inside -- during her five-hour ordeal directing police and other resources to the movie theater where a gunman was shooting at patrons during the midnight premiere of the latest Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises."
After word of the shooting spread through the dispatch center early Friday, Stauffer knew that in order to help those at the scene she had to remain calm and professional.

"You have to mentally break away," she told NBC station KUSA in Denver. " You can't identify too much."
The night started out relatively quiet. "My screen was very empty," she told the Denver Post.
Then around 12:40 a.m., call after call started to come in all from the same place -- the Century Aurora 16 cineplex.
"They're saying somebody is shooting in the auditorium," she said.
Scores had been shot and help was needed quickly. Stauffer calmly radioed to a few officers and directed them to the scene.
A few minutes later, she and the other dispatchers directed every officer in the city to respond to the scene of the shooting that would leave 12 dead and dozens wounded.
Once at the theater, officers pleaded for assistance, gas masks, ambulances and medical care. During the chaos the 39-year-old mother of two kept her composure, even while thinking of her own children.
"Every call with a kid, I'm thinking of my own," she told the Post. "That's really what I'm struggling with now -- not to think about my own daughter every time."
The next few hours were crucial. Stauffer directed resources to police while fellow dispatcher Cheri Brungardt, 32, worked with the fire and rescue dispatchers.
The scene was so big, personnel on the ground didn't have enough gear and other agencies still had not arrived.
"It's hard though because we want to help people. We sent help but sometimes that's not enough." Stauffer told KUSA as she wiped away tears.
"Our job is to send help, and the guys we sent to help were calling for help and we couldn't help them," Stauffer said. "Normally, they get on the radio and the magic dispatcher gets them what they need. This time, they kept calling. They needed help and they couldn't get it."

Both dispatchers told the Post they know it will take time to get over what happened. Stauffer has been off the police dispatch and has been moved to fire duty since the shooting.


Posted By WP


Brown: UN Gun Control Treaty Will Kill Second Amendment

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
It's happening right now. The member states of the United Nations have been meeting, behind closed doors with Hillary Clinton, since July 2nd to hammer out the final details on their so-called Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and Barack Obama, has vowed to sign it on July 27th.
If you're not worried, you should be. Cox goes on to say: "You might think that something so obviously menacing to one of our enumerated fundamental rights would receive a strong rebuke from our top government leaders. But you'd be wrong. This is President Barack Obama's vision for America, and we're expected to just go along with it."
Make no mistake, your constitutional and God-given right to keep and bear arms may forever be regulated and controlled by thugs within the United Nations.
As a matter of policy, President George W. Bush not only opposed the ATT, but also proclaimed that the United States would have no involvement with the planning or implementation of the ATT. He wanted no part of this treasonous treaty.
As Bloomberg news reported, under the Bush Administration, the United States "was the only nation to oppose the 2006 resolution to create an international treaty on the sale of small arms and light weapons, and subsequent measures to continue the talks."
But the times, they are a changing. Instead of following President Bush's example and saying, from the get-go, that this voluntary surrender of our constitutional rights will ever see the light of day; Senate Republicans are taking more of a 'let's-wait-and-see-what-the-UN-comes-up-with' approach.
And while Republicans procrastinate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are legitimizing and actively negotiating something that is illegitimate, a treaty the United States should never be negotiating in the first place.
Make no mistake, our elected officials like to talk tough. As a matter of fact, a number of Senators penned a strongly worded letter on ATT to Barack Obama last year, and they even went so far as to say that they would "oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items."
Don't be lulled into complacency by the tough-sounding rhetoric. Words are cheap and anyone who knows how the UN operates knows that its S.O.P. is deception. The ATT will, without a doubt, contain written promises and grandiose assurances and the UN will assure far too many Senate Republicans that the ATT will in no way restrict your right to legally own a firearm.
Once the ATT is signed and ratified our own government, under the supervision of the thugs of the United Nations, will start to "regulate" and, soon thereafter, start to "confiscate." Don't take our word for it. Former UN ambassador John Bolton, says that the UN "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
 by wp:  The signing of this treaty will be the final shot opening the civil war this government so desperately seems to want.  The representatives we sent to Washington have continually ignores the "will of the people" as they dance their merry way around their chambers.  Obama and his minions continually ignore the reality of the number of armed hunters, vets etc that are in this country as do the idiots of the UN.  The war will be bloody and harsh as the enemy will find , to their sorrow, out.


See the First Images of Colo. Shooting Suspect James Holmes in Court: Orange Hair, Bizarre Looks

Possted by BH

Here is the first image of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes appearing in court. As had been speculated, the 24-year-old donned the orange Joker-like hair some had reported over the weekend:
James Holmes Court Appearance | Makes Faces
Throughout the hearing — which was not his official arraignment  — Holmes appeared lethargic, even closing his eyes as if he was falling asleep. At times, he appeared confused, contorting his face, opening his eyes wide, and looking down.
You can watch for yourself below:
Court photographers also captured his many faces. Below, see many of them in a slideshow:

The Faces of James Holmes

Holmes has been held in solitary confinement at an Arapahoe County detention facility since Friday. He is being held on suspicion of first-degree murder, and he could also face additional counts of aggravated assault and weapons violations.
Authorities have disclosed that he is refusing to cooperate and that it could take months to learn what prompted the horrific attack on midnight moviegoers at a Batman film premiere.
Eighteenth Judicial District Attorney Carol Chambers said Monday her office is considering pursuing the death penalty against Holmes. She said a decision will be made in consultation with victims’ families:
Holmes has been assigned a public defender, and Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said the former doctoral student has “lawyered up” since his arrest early Friday, following the shooting at an Aurora theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded, some critically. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Posted By WP


Under Obama US poverty on track to rise to highest since 1960s

By Hope Yen
WASHINGTON (AP) - The ranks of America's poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.
Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.
The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.
Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.
"I grew up going to Hawaii every summer. Now I'm here, applying for assistance because it's hard to make ends meet. It's very hard to adjust," said Laura Fritz, 27, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., describing her slide from rich to poor as she filled out aid forms at a county center. Since 2000, large swaths of Jefferson County just outside Denver have seen poverty nearly double.
Fritz says she grew up wealthy in the Denver suburb of Highlands Ranch, but fortunes turned after her parents lost a significant amount of money in the housing bust. Stuck in a half-million dollar house, her parents began living off food stamps and Fritz's college money evaporated. She tried joining the Army but was injured during basic training.
Now she's living on disability, with an infant daughter and a boyfriend, Garrett Goudeseune, 25, who can't find work as a landscaper. They are struggling to pay their $650 rent on his unemployment checks and don't know how they would get by without the extra help as they hope for the job market to improve.
In an election year dominated by discussion of the middle class, Fritz's case highlights a dim reality for the growing group in poverty. Millions could fall through the cracks as government aid from unemployment insurance, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps diminishes.
"The issues aren't just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy," said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.
He pointed to the recent recession but also longer-term changes in the economy such as globalization, automation, outsourcing, immigration, and less unionization that have pushed median household income lower. Even after strong economic growth in the 1990s, poverty never fell below a 1973 low of 11.1 percent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs.
"I'm reluctant to say that we've gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon," Edelman said.
Stacey Mazer of the National Association of State Budget Officers said states will be watching for poverty increases when figures are released in September as they make decisions about the Medicaid expansion. Most states generally assume poverty levels will hold mostly steady and they will hesitate if the findings show otherwise. "It's a constant tension in the budget," she said.
The predictions for 2011 are based on separate AP interviews, supplemented with research on suburban poverty from Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution and an analysis of federal spending by the Congressional Research Service and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute.
The analysts' estimates suggest that some 47 million people in the U.S., or 1 in 6, were poor last year. An increase of one-tenth of a percentage point to 15.2 percent would tie the 1983 rate, the highest since 1965. The highest level on record was 22.4 percent in 1959, when the government began calculating poverty figures.
Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.
Demographers also say:
-Poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years. Several predicted that peak poverty levels - 15 percent to 16 percent - will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 percent and weak wage growth.
-Suburban poverty, already at a record level of 11.8 percent, will increase again in 2011.
-Part-time or underemployed workers, who saw a record 15 percent poverty in 2010, will rise to a new high.
-Poverty among people 65 and older will remain at historically low levels, buoyed by Social Security cash payments.
-Child poverty will increase from its 22 percent level in 2010.
Analysts also believe that the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the poverty level, will remain near its peak level of 6.7 percent.
"I've always been the guy who could find a job. Now I'm not," said Dale Szymanski, 56, a Teamsters Union forklift operator and convention hand who lives outside Las Vegas in Clark County. In a state where unemployment ranks highest in the nation, the Las Vegas suburbs have seen a particularly rapid increase in poverty from 9.7 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent.
Szymanski, who moved from Wisconsin in 2000, said he used to make a decent living of more than $40,000 a year but now doesn't work enough hours to qualify for union health care. He changed apartments several months ago and sold his aging 2001 Chrysler Sebring in April to pay expenses.
"You keep thinking it's going to turn around. But I'm stuck," he said.
The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership, as well as noncash aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which were expanded substantially under President Barack Obama's stimulus package.
An additional 9 million people in 2010 would have been counted above the poverty line if food stamps and tax credits were taken into account.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the social safety net has worked and it is now time to cut back. He worries that advocates may use a rising poverty rate to justify additional spending on the poor, when in fact, he says, many live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
A new census measure accounts for noncash aid, but that supplemental poverty figure isn't expected to be released until after the November election. Since that measure is relatively new, the official rate remains the best gauge of year-to-year changes in poverty dating back to 1959.
Few people advocate cuts in anti-poverty programs. Roughly 79 percent of Americans think the gap between rich and poor has grown in the past two decades, according to a Public Religion Research Institute/RNS Religion News survey from November 2011. The same poll found that about 67 percent oppose "cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor" to help reduce the budget deficit.
Outside of Medicaid, federal spending on major low-income assistance programs such as food stamps, disability aid and tax credits have been mostly flat at roughly 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product from 1975 to the 1990s. Spending spiked higher to 2.3 percent of GDP after Obama's stimulus program in 2009 temporarily expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits for the poor.
The U.S. safety net may soon offer little comfort to people such as Jose Gorrin, 52, who lives in the western Miami suburb of Hialeah Gardens. Arriving from Cuba in 1980, he was able to earn a decent living as a plumber for years, providing for his children and ex-wife. But things turned sour in 2007 and in the past two years he has barely worked, surviving on the occasional odd job.
His unemployment aid has run out, and he's too young to draw Social Security.
Holding a paper bag of still-warm bread he'd just bought for lunch, Gorrin said he hasn't decided whom he'll vote for in November, expressing little confidence the presidential candidates can solve the nation's economic problems. "They all promise to help when they're candidates," Gorrin said, adding, "I hope things turn around. I already left Cuba. I don't know where else I can go."

Business Owners Hit Back at Obama in ‘I Built This’ Video

Posted by BH

I built this business videoFollowing President Barack Obama’s highly criticized “you didn’t build that” remark about business owners last week, some owners have submitted photos of their businesses for a two-minute “I built this” video take down of Obama’s comments.
Organized by Bristol Palin, daughter of 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the video features dozens of photos from a variety of businesses.
“Since the President doesn’t understand how our economy works, let’s take a moment to explain how small businesses are created,” Palin wrote on her blog. “More importantly, let’s show him the businesses we’ve made and who has made them.”

The Mitt Romney campaign also jumped on Obama’s remarks with its own “These Hands” ad.


Posted By WP


How Obama Earned My Doctorate

Dear President Obama: I’m still reeling from your recent remarks about small business owners in America. With one sweeping generalization, you stated that those of us who have had successful businesses did not earn that success. Instead, you insist that someone else made it happen for us. I’ve written to tell you my story in the hopes that you will see the foolishness of your unproven assertions. Back in 1989, I decided to pursue a PhD in Criminology. I was nearing the end of my Master’s program in Psychology. I had a teaching assistantship that paid a mere $345 per month. I knew that I could not live on $345 per month for the minimum of three years I would need to finish my doctorate. I also knew that my parents would not be able to extend the same financial support they had so graciously extended while I was working on my Master’s degree. So I devised a plan to start a new business with just $1000 of initial investment. My grandfather had passed away in December of 1988. In the late spring of 1989, my grandmother mailed me a check for $1000 that had been part of a life insurance policy payout issued upon my grandfather’s death. In the late summer of 1989, I met a graduate student by the name of Shannon Ruscoe. He had been playing tennis with my roommate Harry Wilson the day I met him. I was sitting in my living room playing a song by James Taylor when Shannon started singing along. After just a few minutes of listening to Shannon sing, I knew my life would never be the same again. I called Shannon later that fall and asked if he wanted to get together and rehearse a few songs. We did. Within a few weeks we were hanging out at keg parties in places like Starkville’s College Station apartment complex. After a few beers, I would go to my car and get my 12-string. As our repertoire increased, so did Shannon’s confidence as a singer. After a few months of getting to know Shannon, I laid out a plan. I found a beautiful Alvarez six-string with a cedar top and black jacaranda back and sides. I realized I could buy the guitar and install a Martin thin-line pickup under the bridge for just $700. With the remaining $300, I told Shannon that, for just $30 per night, we could rent a PA system from our friend Jim Beaty, the owner of Backstage Music in Starkville. The idea was that after playing free ten times we could start to earn a living as musicians. First, we had to find a place to play. Fortunately, a Kappa Sigma named Mike worked as a manager at J.C. Garcia’s – a Mexican restaurant/bar that featured acoustic acts including the legendary Jeff Cummings and Jeffrey Rupp. We went to see him with an offer, telling Mike we would play at J.C’s free of charge on a Tuesday night, but only on one condition: if they sold $2000 worth of liquor, they would have to hire us the next week for 10% of the liquor sales, or $200. Mike laughed. J.C.s had never sold $2000 worth of liquor on a Tuesday night, which was generally their slowest night of the week. Naturally, he felt he had nothing to lose. So we book our first gig at a real restaurant in a real college town. I called all of my old friends at the Sigma Chi house and told them to show up at J.C’s the following Tuesday night. Shannon told all the girls at the Chi Omega house where he worked as a “house boy” in his spare time. As a result of our marketing, we packed the place out. J.C’s sold over $2000 in liquor that night and we were invited to come back the next week. Playing free at keg parties also paid off. Later, by May of 1990, we were getting hired to play private parties. At one of those parties, we met the manager of the Bully III, a restaurant/bar near downtown Starkville. His name was David Lee Odom. He upped our salary to $250 per night plus free dinner and free beer. By the time I graduated, I would play in that bar over 100 times. It was there that I met other musicians and eventually had a chance to play all over the state and region. As a businessman and friend, Dave Odom changed our lives forever. After Shannon moved to Nashville in 1991, I decided it was time to rely on the government for financial support. I’m just kidding. I simply went out and found another great singer named Anne Ford. We would play together until 1993. Our act was so successful that in April of 1993, my last full month of college, we played a whopping 22 gigs in just 30 days. As the result of my business venture I was able to graduate with a PhD without taking out a single student loan. And it was a business venture. I was not just a guitarist. I booked most of our gigs, handled equipment purchases, and did a modest bit of accounting. The irony is that, back in those days, I was a Democrat with socialist leanings. I voted for Dukakis and Clinton as the “lesser of two evils” – all the while complaining about the lack of a far-left alternative. Shortly thereafter, I would get involved in a two-year relationship with the daughter of the head of the Socialist Party of Ecuador. I simply failed to reconcile the discrepancies between my theoretical view of the world and my real world experiences. Eventually, I grew out of my childish socialist mindset and realized that capitalism had allowed me to utilize my God-given talents to earn a living government could never provide. Someday, Mr. President, you’ll grow out of it, too. Sincerely, Dr. Mike S. Adams 
 by wp:   i am very afraid we will not have time for Obama to grow out of it.  With his destructive actions there will not be a country left if he is not removed from office.


Posted By WP


Was Colorado Shooting Staged By The Government?

James Holmes SC Was Colorado Shooting Staged By The Government?
(NaturalNews) James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter who reportedly opened fire at a Batman movie premiere, was a medical student at the University of Colorado, pursuing a PhD in neuroscience, reports ABC News. (…)
As part of the attack, Holmes painted his hair red and referred to himself as “The Joker,” one of the arch enemies in the DC Comics-inspired Batman movie series. (…)
According to news reports, this sudden violent rampage was completely out of character for James Holmes, who was described as “shy.”
The New York Times is now reporting:
Billy Kromka, a pre-med student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, worked with Mr. Holmes for three months last summer as a research assistant in a lab of at the Anschutz Medical Campus. Mr. Kromka said he was surprised to learn Mr. Holmes was the shooting suspect. “It was just shocking, because there was no way I thought he could have the capacity to do commit an atrocity like this,” he said. (…)
“He spent much of his time immersed in the computer, often participating in role-playing online games…”
There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind. That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis, or trauma (and sometimes all three).

His behavior doesn’t add up

His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of “killing everyone.”
Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn’t add up.
“Holmes was taken into custody shortly after the shooting, police said, adding he didn’t resist when he was arrested,” reports a local CBS news affiliate (…).
“After his arrest, Holmes told police about ‘possible explosives in his residence,’ Oates said. When police searched his apartment, they discovered it was booby-trapped and evacuated surrounding buildings, police said. Oates said bomb technicians are determining how to disarm flammable or explosive material in the third-floor apartment. He said police could be there some time.”
None of this checks out. If you’re a killer bent on causing mayhem, why tell the police about your surprise bomb waiting for them back at your apartment?

Holmes was clearly provided with exotic gear

Continuing from CBS:
“He said pictures from inside the apartment are fairly disturbing and the devices look to be sophisticated, adding the booby-traps were ‘something I’ve never seen.’ One rifle, two handguns, a knife, a bullet proof vest, a ballistic helmet, a gas device, a gas mask, military SWAT clothing and unidentified explosives were also found in Holmes’ car, a law enforcement source told CBS News. Oates said Holmes wore a gas mask, a ballistic helmet and vest as well as leg, groin and throat protectors during the shooting.”
In other wordsthis guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps… c’mon, this isn’t a “lone gunman.” This is somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, and then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.
“Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said Holmes’ apartment is booby-trapped with a ‘sophisticated’ maze of flammable devices. It could take hours or days for authorities to disarm it,” reports Yahoo News (…).
This is not your run-of-the-mill crime of passion. It was a carefully planned, heavily funded and technically advanced attack. Who might be behind all this? The FBI, of course, which has a long history of setting up and staging similar attacks, then stopping them right before they happen. See four documented stories on these facts:
As you soak all this in, remember that the FBI had admitted to setting up terror plots, providing the weapons and gear, staging the location of the bombings, and even driving the vehicles to pull it off! This is not a conspiracy theory; it’s been admitted by the FBI right out in the open. Even the New York Times openly reports all this in stories like this one:
NYT: Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. (…)
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. …the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving…

Mystery man Holmes has no background

On top of all this, Holmes apparently has no background. “He’s not on anybody’s radar screen — nothing,” said a peace officer in a NYT article. “This guy is somewhat of an enigma. Nobody knows anything about him.” (
Mr. Holmes’s only criminal history is a traffic summons, the authorities said. He earned a bachelor’s degree with honors in neuroscience in 2010 from the University of California, Riverside, and was a graduate student in neurosciences at the University of Colorado at Denver’s Anschutz Medical Campus… He was currently collecting unemployment…

Question: How does an unemployed medical student afford $20,000 in weapons gear?

If you start to look at the really big picture here, the obvious question arises: How does an unemployed medical student afford all the complex weapons gear, bomb-making gear, “flammable” booby trap devices, ammunition, multiple magazines, bullet-proof vest, groin protection, ballistic helmet, SWAT uniform, and all the rest of it?
A decent AR-15 rifle costs $1,000 or more all by itself. The shotgun and handgun might run another $800 total. Spare mags, sights, slings, and so on will run you at least another $1,000 across three firearms. The bullet-proof vest is easily another $800, and the cost of the bomb-making gear is anybody’s guess. With all the specialty body gear, ammunition, booby-trap devices, and more, I’m guessing this is at least $20,000 in weapons and tactical gear, much of which is very difficult for civilians to get in the first place.
The mere manufacture of an explosive booby-trap device is, all by itself, a felony crime by the way. And remember: “Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said Holmes’ apartment is booby-trapped with a ‘sophisticated’ maze of flammable devices. It could take hours or days for authorities to disarm it,” reported Yahoo News (…).
Question: Where does an unemployed, introverted medical school student get the training to deploy sophisticated booby traps, tactical body armor, weapons systems, and more? Certainly not in graduate school!
All this leads to an obvious third party influence over all this. Someone else taught this guy these skills and funded the acquisition of the equipment.
Note: Some readers have questioned the $20,000 figure estimated here, saying this gear could have been acquired for only $10,000 or so. I doubt that, as all the extras that you need to effectively run these guns cost a lot of money: training courses, spare magazines, etc. Just a decent AR-15 battle sight (a holographic red dot sight) can run $1,000 – $2,000. Search “ACOG” if you don’t believe me. It is also reported that Holmes bought 6,000 rounds of ammo, which definitely isn’t cheap either. It’s clear this guy was spending big bucks. Whether it’s $10k or $20k isn’t really that much of a point.

Staged just in time for a vote on the UN small arms treaty?

More and more, this shooting is looking like a deliberate plot staged by the government itself much like Operation Fast and Furious pulled off by the ATF ( which helped smuggle tens of thousands of guns into Mexico for the purpose of causing “gun violence” in the USA, then blaming the Second Amendment for it.
All this looks like James Holmes completed a “mission” and then calmly ended that mission by surrendering to police and admitting everything. The mission, as we are now learning, was to cause as much terror and mayhem as possible, then to have that multiplied by the national media at exactly the right time leading up the UN vote next week on a global small arms treaty that could result in gun confiscation across America. (
Even wrote about this quite extensively, warning readers about the coming gun confiscation effort related to the UN treaty. The story was authored by Larry Bell (…) and says the UN treaty could “override our national sovereignty, and in the process, provide license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”
In other words, this has all the signs of Fast & Furious, Episode II. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover someone in Washington was behind it all. After all, there’s no quicker way to disarm a nation and take total control over the population than to stage violence, blame it on firearms, then call for leaders to “do something!” Such calls inevitably end up resulting in gun confiscation, and it’s never too long after that before government genocide really kicks in like we saw with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and other tyrants.

Governments routinely murder millions

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:

A “monopoly of force” in government is far more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter

So yes, James Holmes and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, shoring up their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
See this document entitled, “Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)” policy paper No. 24:…
As this document reveals, a table entitled “Governance solutions for reasserting the state monopoly on the use of force” lists the options available to governments to re-establish “monopolies of force” against their own people:
• (Re-)establish state monopoly
- Ownership of WMDs
- Safety Inspectorates
• Prohibit business activity
- Justice and Execution
- Deadly Force?
• Regulate/limit activities
- Private defense/security services
- Control of financial transfers
- Export controls
- Transport and infrastructure safety
- Environmental impact
Interestingly, that document also describes “terrorism” in a way that perfectly matches the Aurora, Colorado “Batman” movie theater shooter:
Terrorists aim to spread panic and fear in societies in order to achieve political goals, be they based on left- or right-wing, social-revolutionary, nationalistic, or religious ideologies. They are organized in a clandestine way, most often in small groups and cells… Typical tactical means include kidnapping, hostage-taking, sabotage, murder, suicide attacks, vehicle bombs and improvised explosive devices.

A global monopoly of force

This document is a goldmine of information about the globalist agenda to disarm and enslave the population. Check out page 28, which reads:
The legitimate monopoly of force should not be limited to the nation-state but should be based on the local, national, regional and the global levels.
Global Security Governance and the Monopoly of Force
At the global level no monopoly of violence exists. The UN Security Council already has a monopoly power to authorize the use of force at the global level, although the UN was never given the necessary means to exercise this authority, such as the capacity to implement sanctions, a police force and armed forces…
This deficiency in global governance acts as a bottleneck and a barrier to the creation of the democratically legitimized monopoly of violence that is globally required.
This story gets deep, doesn’t it? Watch for more analysis here at, where we still figh


Posted By WP


The Country of Texas ~
Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union. (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

We Texans love y'all, but we'll probably have to take action if Barack Obama wins the election. We'll miss you too.

Here is what can happen:

1: Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States, and Texas secedes from the Union in summer of 2013.

2: George W. Bush will become the President of the Republic of Texas. You might not think that he talks too pretty, but we haven't had another terrorist attack, and the economy was fine until the effects of the Democrats lowering the qualifications for home loans came to roost.

So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. We will control the space industry.

2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.

3. Defense Industry--we have over 65% of it. The term "Don't mess with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.

4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee, we don't know. Why not ask Obama?

5. Natural Gas - again we have all we need, and it's too bad about those Northern States. John Kerry and Al Gore will have to figure out a way to keep them warm.

6. Computer Industry - we lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications equipment -small companies like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Microconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

7. Medical Care - We have the research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well as other large health centers. The Houston Medical Center alone employees over 65,000 people.

8. We have enough colleges to keep us getting smarter: University of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Rice, SMU, University of Dallas, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT (University of North Texas), Texas Women's University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.

9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force, and it isn't restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in Texas, it's a Right to Work State and, therefore, it's every man and women for themselves. We just go out and get the job done. And if we don't like the way one company operates, we get a job somewhere else.

10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics, and insurance industries, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and several military bases. We don't have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over the Texas Rangers.

12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let's not forget seafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

13. Three of the ten largest cities in the United States, and twenty- three of the 100 largest cities in the United States, are located inTexas. And Texas also has more land than California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island and Vermont combined.

14. Trade: Three of the ten largest ports in the United States are located in Texas.

15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don't need to. You see, nothing rusts in Texas, so our vehicles stay beautiful and run well for decades.

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 5 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off satellite communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long as you survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from Global Warming.

The People of Texas

P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note to give you something to think about!
In NOV, the choice is clear and simple: 0bama or America!

I stand by my personal belief that the foundation of the American way of life is made of two primary elements: individual freedom and individual responsibility. Barack Obama is trying to eliminate both. I hope you will join me in strongly supporting Mitt Romney for President of the United States!


Posted By Woody Pendleton


What If 20% of the Adults in That Colorado Theater Had Been Armed and Trained?
Gary North
Printer-Friendly Format
July 23, 2012
I have a question.
If 20% of the adults in that Colorado theater had been armed with a handgun and trained in its use, how many people would have died in addition to the shooter?
I think the answer is clear: fewer.
The reason why so many died is that 99% of the people in that theater were unarmed. There was only one exception.
I offer a proposition:
"Armed and dangerous" is an inescapable concept. There is no such thing as "unarmed and safe." There is only the question of which person or group is armed and dangerous.
It would have been far better if 100% of the adults in that theater had been armed and trained. But we must be reasonable in our assumptions. We cannot expect 100% of any large group to get trained in the use of a handgun. But 20% is reasonable.
The reason why we do not have 20% of our population armed and trained is because the culture of gun control is dominant. There is a stigma for people to carry a weapon. It begins early.
This stigma begins in tax-supported schools. It begins in an environment in which unarmed people are forced into a government-controlled environment for 8 hours a day.
Within a few years, students learn that bullies get their way, that bullies are not expelled, that the system favors bullies. The victims learn that nothing can protect them. They learn that self-defense is regarded as a violation of the law, that self-defense is regarded as immoral and uncharitable. The student who fights back is as likely to be punished as the bully.
The system therefore favors bullies. The victims learn that bullies run the show, despite bureaucrats who promise justice on campus. Bullies know how to work the government's system of sanctions. They have nothing to lose. The victims -- the productive members of the school system -- have a lot to lose. They learn meekness. They learn submission.
This is what tax-funded education is designed to produce: a mentality of submission.
This is high school in Back to the Future. This is music to the ears of the Biffs of this world.
At graduation, the victims take the culture of disarmament with them. So do the bullies, who know that their victims are now psychologically trained not to fight back.
The victims place their hope in this: the randomness of bullies in the general population. "The other guy will be a victim. I will escape."
Inner-city males know better, which is why they are more likely to carry guns than males in the suburbs. But no one trains them in the use of these guns. The police pretend, as teachers pretended, that bullies are under control.
A handgun in your holster makes a statement: "The police cannot protect us. The state cannot protect us." This is correctly regarded as an insult to the bureaucrats who run the state -- an assertion of their failure to protect law-abiding citizens. Hence, bureaucrats favor gun control. Gun control does not protect the population, nor is it intended to. What gun control does is simple: it does keep the evidence of the state's failure from becoming widespread. It keeps voters disarmed and dependent on the state.
Bottom line: it keeps adults in "school" until the day they die.
A dozen if them died in that theater. That is the price they paid for the culture of disarmament.
This is the state's position: "Better a dozen dead people in a theater than an armed population."
Women say guns make them nervous. When a gun is pointed at me, it makes me nervous, too. The cure for this is to carry a handgun and know how to use it. This is gun safety. It means reduced safety for people who point guns at other people.
Women who say that guns make them nervous are saying than they do not want to defend themselves or their children. It also means that they do not want their escorts to defend them and their children. It means that they expect the police to protect them and their children -- police who are not there.
Women who favor gun control favor a system in which mass murderers are unchallenged until the police arrive.
This suggestion outrages gun-control proponents. They really do believe that a madman who is ready to kill 70 people will not break gun-control laws. They really do believe that an armed citizenry would not be a deterrent against a madman with the desire to kill people.
When the police are absent, who will protect us if we are not armed individually? We already know. This is the lesson from Colorado.
A murderous madmen can buy black market weapons at some price. So, what good is a gun control law for unarmed movie patrons?
What also rings all too familiar: the continuing cowardice of this nation's politicians on the subject of gun control. Both presidential candidates rightfully mourned a senseless tragedy but offered no solutions to stop this from happening again and again and again. The only major politician who was brave enough to point out the elephant in the room - our nation's laughable gun control restrictions - was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who sensibly asked why neither Mitt Romney nor President Obama will talk about the need for gun control.
"Soothing words are nice," said Bloomberg. "But maybe it's time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they're going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country."
It's been a problem across the country for a long time.
Columbine High School. Virginia Tech University. Fort Hood, Texas. Gabrielle Giffords. The grisly roll call goes on and on.
We have heard it all before. We will never stop hearing it. This is the religion of disarmed victims.
This is what the Biffs of this world love to hear.
Here is the rival view, expressed by Wyoming economist Robert Anderson.
Am I the only person in the country asking what should be the obvious question, "Why is the killer still alive?" How different the outcome would likely have been if the theater had not posted warning signs against carrying concealed weapons in the theater. Those signs were an "open invitation" to a deranged madman to slaughter harmless victims within. When we moved to the Big Horns in 1995, Beverly and I drove up into the mountains on the opening day of deer season. There were cars and hunters everywhere, but I assured her we'd not likely find any muggers lurking around. I wonder why?
I know the truly important lesson won't be learned from this tragic event, but the only reliable self-protection we have as individuals is the ability to protect ourselves. That Colorado tragedy is another reminder of how useless the government can be at protecting citizens, even when there are a bunch of "security cops" within their midst.
These are the two positions. Politicians do not wish to deal with either of them.
Now the city government of Aurora, Colorado will spend a great deal of money prosecuting the murderer. Taxpayers had better hope that he pleads guilty. Otherwise, this court case could drag on for years. How many appeals on technicalities? How many stays of execution?
If he has no money, there will be a court-appointed lawyer. I wonder how good he will be.
Will the murderer receive life imprisonment with no possibility of parole?
Will he be Charles Manson II, a ward of the state for the next 50 or 60 years? At $28,750 a year?
If we want safer theaters, we need armed patrons who are trained in self-defense.
If we want fewer mass murderers, we need a higher percentage of armed citizens who are armed and trained in self-defense.
If this upsets the local police, tough.
If this upsets women who are squeamish about guns, tough.
If this upsets liberals, tough.
If this is not understood by a majority of voters, tough -- for the victims, but not for mass murderers, thugs, and bullies.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...