Sunday, August 5, 2012

TEA PARTY SIGNATURE DRIVE - NO DONATIONS REQUIRED

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

TheTeaParty.net
Dear Patriot,

For years, gun-grabbing liberals have tried to create a debate to "interpret" the Second Amendment in a way that would block free men from owning and carrying firearms.

Every criminal act that involves a gun is immediately seized upon as a reason to further restrict access to purchase and carry firearms. The Second Amendment could not be more clear:

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.

While researching our strategy to counter the gun-grabbers this week I also came across this quote:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson

Notice that he doesn't say that allowing the carrying of arms will prevent ALL homicides, but call me the next time you hear about some psychopath shooting up a gun show. With the government considering a treaty with the UN that would restrict "small arms" and other very serious anti-gun legislation, it is critical that we send a clear message to our lawmakers in Washington.

We will not compromise on our right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. With all the anti-gun craziness coming this week, we need to remind Washington that there is NO FLEXIBILITY when it comes to the restriction of our constitutional right to own a weapon.

Join the more than 83,000 Patriots who have send their letters to Congress. Please take just a couple of minutes and make your voice heard HERE.


gunrights

*You are not required to donate in order to participate but your contributions give us the resources we need to accomplish incredible things on behalf of the Tea Party movement. Tell Washington "HANDS OFF MY GUNS" by signing the petition now, it will only take a couple of minutes!
*You are not required to donate in order to participate and Have messages delivered.

Click here to send your letters


THE TEA PARTY AND AGENDA 21

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR & GBTV


FEDS PUSHING FOOD STAMPS ON MILLIONS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Income, Asset Limits Ignored To Qualify More For Food Stamps

21
As if it weren’t bad enough that a record number of people—46 million and growing—get food stamps from the U.S. government, a federal audit reveals that many who don’t qualify receive them under a special “broad-based” eligibility program that disregards income and asset requirements.
As a result American taxpayers are getting stuck with a multi-million-dollar tab to feed hundreds of thousands who can well afford to feed themselves. Here is the nutshell version of how it came to this; the Obama Administration has promoted food stamps like there’s no tomorrow, asserting that it’s the government’s duty to eradicate “food insecure households.”
In the last few years the administration has spent millions of dollars on ad campaigns to recruit more food-stamp recipients, even doling out hefty cash rewards to local governments that sign up the most people. One state even bragged about a $5 million performance bonus it got from the feds for its “swift processing of applications.”
As a result a record 46.3 million people—including some illegal immigrants—get taxpayer-funded food stamps at an annual cost of $76 billion, according to the agency that distributes the welfare benefit, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This represents an increase of more than 16 million over the previous year, according to USDA figures. It’s only a matter of time before an out-of-control government program like this becomes infested with fraud and corruption.
A few months ago the USDA’s Inspector General revealed that many food-stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to buy drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors. Some trade food stamps for reduced amounts of cash. The fraud has cost taxpayers nearly $200 million, according to the USDA watchdog, who provided various examples during testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Regardless, the administration keeps pouring money into the program. For instance in May it allocated $4 million to provide farmers’ markets not currently participating in the welfare plan with the wireless technology necessary to redeem the benefits. The idea is to provide healthy fruits and vegetables to low-income folks who would otherwise not be able to afford them. This is crucial because the feds claim the nation’s obesity epidemic has hit poor and ethnic minority communities hardest because they don’t have access to healthy foods.
This brings us back to the bulging food-stamp rolls. The previously mentioned federal audit, conducted by the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found that 473,000 households that received food stamps were not even eligible under federal standards. In one year alone this cost taxpayers about $460 million, according to the probe which suggests “improved oversight.”
Here is another enraging figure included in the GAO report; in the last decade the food stamp program has more than doubled and costs have quadrupled because the government has essentially encouraged states to disregard household income and asset limits required to qualify for the assistance. This is called “broad-based categorical eligibility.”

MUSLIM BORTHERHOOD

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER FZTV & GBTV

THE FUTURE IN LEADERSHIP DISCUSSION

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER FZTV & GBTV


WHAT WILL WE DO WHEN A EMP SHUTS DOWN THE USA??

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV


Experts on a panel assembled by Florida-based The United West have warned that the aftermath of an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack would be devastating on the United States, with up to 90 percent of the population dead or dying.
According to Fritz Ermarth, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, “A significant EMP event would bring about the prompt and early delayed death of millions of people.”

In what has been called an “Electronic Armageddon,” an EMP strike delivered from a single bomb would result in the United States losing two-thirds to 90 percent of its population within six months of the event.
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, Ph.D., R-Md., has been deeply concerned about the effects of an EMP of the nation’s critical infrastructure. In a report written by the Congressional EMP Commission which Mr. Bartlett established, a one megaton nuclear device detonated about 500 kilometers in the atmosphere would lay down an EMP blanket over the entire contiguous United States. Cities in the periphery of the blast radius, San Diego and Maine, would experience approximately 10-kilovolts per meter of electrical field strength.
That amount of energy would be enough to cause substantial damage to unprotected electronics in both civilian and military equipment.
(Strategic military assets are well protected from EMP, but as one moves down to the tactical and support assets, EMP protection is much less.)
One major form of damage would be to the electrical power grid. An EMP would strike the electrical transformers that are part of the electrical distribution system, rendering them inoperable. There are more than 2,000 large transformers throughout the United States, a sizable proportion of which would fall victim to the blast.
The national power grid is a very complex and interwoven system and a failure in any part of the grid would have a cascading effect on the rest of the structure.

Fritz Ermarth
The Northeast Blackout of August 2003 was a sign of the grid’s vulnerability. High summer temperatures stretched high-voltage lines until they sagged onto overgrown tree branches, and the result zap caused a two-day blackout. The tree limbs, in effect, shut down over 100 power plants, deprived more than 55 million people of power and cost the national economy $6 billion, according to the 2004 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force.
Fortunately, the 48-hour blackout did not cause many deaths. There were some heat-related deaths and a few people died in carbon monoxide poisonings as a result of running generators in their homes or from fires started from candles.
But the effects did not end there. Television and radio stations went off the air, traffic lights and train switching stations went off-line, causing a transportation gridlock that turned highways into parking lots. Water treatment plants went offline as their water tanks emptied and their water lines lost pressure, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without potable water.
An EMP-generated power outage would be much worse. Much, much worse.
The EMP Commission gave a startling scenario. In addition to loss of transportation and water supplies, communication would be largely impossible. Our communication system has grown exponentially with the advent of the integrated circuit.
But the integrated circuit of today is nearly 10,000 times more complex than it was 25 years ago and the vulnerability of communication equipment has increased correspondingly.
According to testimony given to the House Armed Services Committee by Dr. Lowell Wood of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “there is reason to believe that the semiconductor-based portions of our communication system, which is to say essentially all of it, would be extremely EMP vulnerable. Measurements done on individual systems certainly support that projection.”
Telephones would not work. Most emergency home radios would no longer function, since they are also vulnerable to an EMP.
Aircraft, particularly civilian aircraft would also be vulnerable to an EMP. While analysts and military experts do not believe they would fall out of the sky, “the avionics [would] be considerably disrupted, severely disrupted; and that would obviously influence the ability to land and – depending on what they had for navigation capability and so on, it would be very, very disruptive,” according to Air Force General Robert T. Marsh, former chairman of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection.

Peter Vincent Fry
“Many that were aloft in a daytime attack could probably be landed with a great deal of determination and good fortune on the part of the crews.”
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former member of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and president of EMPACT America, Inc., noted that only three days of food are available in stores and 60 days in warehouses.
After an initial run on stores for anything one could buy, the effective food supply would be exhausted. What food was left, in warehouses and on the farms, would be left to rot. What wasn’t ruined by a lack of refrigeration would be left to spoil since there would also be a lack of transportation as those delivery vehicles that may still work would simply run out of gas (which is pumped by electricity).
Even purchasing food would assume stores would find some way to operate without electricity.
After an initial binge to eat the thawing food, people will start to get hungry.
The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health. Any fire started either by negligence or malicious intent would rage unchecked since there would be no firefighting equipment that would run for very long.
This type of scenario is not fanciful, it is fact. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina offered this scenario in microcosm. According to the National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster suffered by the United States, as well as one of the five deadliest.
Almost 2,000 people died in the actual hurricane and in the subsequent floods. The total property damage was estimated at $81 billion. Hurricane Katrina has been used as a model by the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies on what to do … and what not to do, in a crisis.
The aftermath of an EMP attack would be worse. In the case of past natural disasters, there were agencies and infrastructures outside of the disaster area that were unaffected and could render assistance. Even with outside assistance, it was days before such basics as water was delivered to the affected areas.

In nightmare EMP scenario, the entire nation would be a disaster area. Systems could be down for weeks, months, or even years.
Ermarth is quick to point out that an EMP would not throw America back to the 17th century; it would throw the nation back to the Stone Age. There would be a 21st century population living in a primitive environment without Stone Age skills.
In the 19th century, 75 percent of the nation’s population farmed. They were one generation removed from being pioneers. Now the nation is fed by only 2 percent of population. Most of the 98 percent do not have the survival skills to live past a few months.

William Forstchen
Survivalists would last for a while, but then would have to contend with people streaming out of cities looking for food.
Dr. William Forstchen is a professor of history at Montreat College and the author of a best-selling book on the possible aftermath of an EMP event. The book, titled “One Second After” explains what might happen in a typical American town in the wake of an attack. Forstchen has said he got his inspiration for his book from Newt Gingrich. (Gingrich, Forstchen noted, was the only presidential candidate talking about the dangers from an EMP.)
Speaking on the August 3 webcast hosted by United West, Forstchen said that “you cannot recover from an EMP.”
In that same webcast, Pry noted, an EMP event is the most serious threat facing the United States, but almost no one knows about it.
The United States has already had two warnings in the last two month: the power outages in Washington, D.C. and India.
The experts believe the only real answer is to harden our existing systems.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

TAXPAYER SMACKDOWNS THE NEW FUTURE??

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV


By Michael Thompson
Think the economy is doing just fine? And that taxpayers are happy trusting government to address problems?

Residents of the Atlanta area have spoken loudly on such issues with this week’s overwhelming rejection of a proposed 1 percent sales tax – a plan that in booming economic times might not even have been noticed.
The proposal was for the sales tax in the 10-county metro Atlanta area to raise some $7.2 billion to pay for 157 transportation projects designed to make it easier to get around.
But all 10 counties rejected the idea, finishing with a margin of 63 percent opposed to the Transportation Investment Act, with only 37 percent in favor.
Barbara Payne, executive director of the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation, told WND the idea was a “poorly constructed plan put forth by elected officials who weren’t qualified to address the concerns of the entire region.”
One of the projects that would have been funded was the Atlanta Beltline project, which would have impacted only residents of the city of Atlanta. A whopping $602 million, some 8 percent of the total taxes, would have gone to fund it.
The tax was up for a vote in Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties.
“We don’t need metro counties paying for people in Atlanta to feel good about themselves by riding the Beltline,” Payne told WND.
“Let this send a message,” Debbie Dooley told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “We the people, you have to earn our trust before asking for more money.”
Dooley is a tea party leader who organized opposition to the tax plan.
WND reported the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) system stood to get some $1.3 billion. But MARTA currently only serves DeKalb and Fulton counties, meaning that nearly $2 billion of the $7.2 billion in tax revenue would have gone to improving the transportation in only two counties.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution broke down the voting by county, showing that the predominantly Republican-leaning metro counties soundly rejected the tax increase: Fayette County 76 percent to 24 percent; Cherokee County 79-21; Douglas 68-32; Cobb 69-31; Rockdale 70-30; Clayton 54-46; Henry 71- 29; Gwinnett 71-29; DeKalb 51-49; and Fulton 51-49.
“I was surprised that it failed in every county, but the fact is the citizens of these 10 metro Atlanta counties aren’t interested in tax increases right now,” Payne said.
The taxpayer dissatisfaction also was reflected in a vote by residents of Brookhaven to follow the lead of Sandy Springs, Dunwood, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills to incorporate.
According to a report from WSB-TV in Atlanta, residents want more local control of government services and greater efficiency. So Brookhaven residents have voted to join a growing trend in Atlanta-area cities that are breaking free of fiscal mismanagement and elected officials who aren’t accountable to citizens.
WND CEO Joseph Farah wrote a column July 5 praising the city of Sandy Springs, which incorporated in 2005 and has successfully privatized services by outsourcing virtually every government position to contractors.
Brookhaven residents’ decision to demand more government accountability by voting to incorporate is a trend that will only grow across the nation, Dick Williams, host of “The Georgia Gang” political show on WAGA-TV in Atlanta, told WND.
“What they want and what they are getting from their county (DeKalb County) are two different things,” he said. “With public services not working and the roads not being fixed, folks are tired of waiting for counties to do the right thing.”
With the success of Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody, residents of other unincorporated neighborhoods of Fulton and DeKalb County are becoming more cognizant of the problems of non-localized government that isn’t accountable, Williams said.
“It’s been building since the housing problem [of 2008], the economic downturn, and job loss in the area. The more people are not being able to bounce back, the more people become aware that they want to become involved in government to see where their taxes are going.
“The counties cannot govern urban areas. The counties can run courts, libraries, jail, but they can’t deliver services to residents, which is one of the driving forces behind this move to incorporate and outsource government for greater efficiency and accountability,” said Williams.
He added, “I hope this is the wave of the future. I say that because, with five years of experience with five new cities, not one has raised taxes despite the worst [sustained] economic downturn since the Great Depression and each of the new cities operates at a surplus.”
One aspect in the bid to create new, more efficiently run cities has many people taking notice. USA Today leveled a veiled charge of racism against Brookhaven, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody and Johns Creek.
“Cityhood is a contentious issue in metropolitan Atlanta, one rooted in and shaped by politics and race,” the paper said. “Wealthier, largely white communities on the city’s north side, which watched for years as their tax dollars were spent in poorer, mostly minority areas elsewhere in the two counties, had sought for years to break away and incorporate as cities with more local control.”
Williams asserted it’s “not the racial angle that drives it, it’s the delivery of services or the neglect of services that is compelling the citizens of these cities the USA Today attacked to make a move for more localized control of our tax dollars, so that we actually get a return on our investment in the community.”
WND acquired the breakdown of 2012 employment for Fulton County and found that of the 4,851 full time county employees, 3,980 of them are black (82 percent). Fulton County has a population that is only 47 percent black. Of the 916 county employees who are classified as “other than full-time employees,” 787 are black (85 percent).
A quick breakdown of certain departments shows a trend of exclusion in Fulton County public jobs, with 86 percent of the Arts and Culture Department personnel black; 93 percent of 140 people in the Behavioral Health Department black; 81 percent of the 98 people in the County Managers Department black; 90 percent of the 65 people in the Emergency Services black; 89 percent of the 118 in the Finance Department black; of the 353 in the Health and Wellness Department, 306 are black; of the 37 people in the Purchasing Department, 100 percent are black; of the 19 in the Registrations and Elections Department, 100 percent are black; of the 150 employed in the Tax Assessor Department, 84 percent are black; of the 185 employed in the Tax Commissioner Department, 94 percent are black.
“The city of Dunwoody has seven employees, plus 45 police. All the other services are contracted out, whether that be for zoning, finance, development, or purchasing. As opposed to having huge pension problems, the city has the cops on 401k’s,” said Williams.
In 2011, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia seeking to dissolve the city charters of Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills.
The lawsuit claimed, the paper reported, that the state “circumvented the normal legislative process and set aside its own criteria when creating the ‘super-majority white’ cities within Fulton and DeKalb counties.”
As a result, according to the lawsuit, minority votes in those areas are diluted, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Williams said the “point of these cities moving to incorporate is simply this: Brookhaven doesn’t have a single DeKalb County elected official living within its boundaries. A city council member now in Brookhaven will represent a district of 10,000 people, meaning they’ll probably know their council member.”
“Government should be localized and accountable, and it looks like Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Johns Creek, and hopefully Brookhaven are providing a way to restore that type of control to cities tired of seeing tax revenue exported to another part of the county. It’s a model that will be replicated nationwide,” said Williams.

10 REASONS GABBY SHOULD NOT GET MONEY FOR HER PERFORMANCE

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

10 Reasons Gabby Douglas Should Not Make Money off Her Gold Medal Performance

Olympics Day 2 - Gymnastics - ArtisticBegin sarcasm:
I’m outraged. Gabby Douglas, affectionately known as the “Flying Squirrel,” is going to make millions of dollars after her gold medal Olympic performance.
This should not be.
First, she didn’t do it on her own. You know, “you didn’t build that.” She had help from other people. There was her mother, her coach, and teammates. The Olympic outfits she wore were paid for by the United States Olympic Committee. If NBC hadn’t broadcast the results of the competition, very few people would have seen her gold medal performance and her infectious smile. They were with her when she flipped upside down and landed on the four-inch balance beam. I even saw President Obama there.
Second, Gabby is small in stature. This is a huge advantage to anyone doing gymnastics. Her ability to rotate quickly puts a tall person at a disadvantage. The Russian girl who came in second was even shorter. I abhor size discrimination. There is no way that I could ascend the ranks of elite gymnastics at my height and weight. I had to pick the shot put. There’s no money in endorsements from shot putters.
Third, Bob Costas made the point that Gabby is the first African American to win the women’s all-around gymnastics crown. Did her race play a role in the judging? I want to know. The judges should be questioned. Some might argue that compensation was made for her race and the fact that no black had ever won the coveted all-around gold medal. If this is true, then reverse discrimination played a role in the judges’ decision.
Fourth, there is no reason why anyone should be paid so much money for doing something that can’t be shared by the community. Hillary said it best, “it takes a village.” That money could be better spent on the poor and homeless. She should be protested against by the Occupy Wall Street crowd because she is now an evil one-percenter.
Fifth, as everybody knows, women gymnasts always get paid more than men gymnasts do post-Olympics. Mary Lou Retton is worth nearly $6 million. Nastia Liukin is worth more than $2 million. Hardly anyone remembers the names of the men gold medal winners let alone how much they’re worth. This is blatant sexism.
Sixth, there is beauty discrimination. All these girls are cute. Girls who aren’t cute don’t get the endorsements. It’s time that we all read J.P. Hartley’s 1960 novel Facial Justice that “depicts a post-apocalyptic society that has sought to banish privilege and envy, to the extent that people will even have their faces surgically altered in order to appear neither too beautiful nor too ugly.”
Seventh, “The gymnast has a healthy, wholesome and all-American image which would be attractive to plenty of companies.” This smacks of “American exceptionalism.”
Eighth, Gabby gave “all the glory to God.” She said, “It’s kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him, and all the blessings fall down on me.” The owners of Chick-fil-A also believe in God and support the biblical definition of marriage. Unless she tells the world that she is for homosexual marriage the companies that pay her for endorsements should be boycotted.
Ninth, I hear she eats at Chick-fil-A.
Tenth, I’m just trying to keep it real.
/ Sarcasm



COST OF GREEN FUELS FOR NAVY AND AIR FORCE IS BEYOND ANY COMMON SENSE

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Beat GSA!



Beat GSA!

If America had a “Spend Like a Drunken Sailor Award,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus would win hands-down, for blowing $12 million on biofuel for Navy ships.
Even as the armed services face drastic budget cuts under “automatic sequestration” and other proposed reductions, further undermining our national security, Mabus and President Obama clearly believe “it’s only taxpayer money.”
“Beat GSA” may have to replace Navy’s “Beat Army” football battle cry.
In fairness, Secretary Mabus’s “Great Green Fleet” of ships and fighter jets performed well during recent military exercises off Hawaii, burning blends of 50% biofuels and 50% conventional fuels. But the price tag makes the fleet a poster child for wasteful government spending.
The exercises cost the Navy nearly $27 per gallon for 450,000 gallons of biofuels produced from algae and waste grease and animal fat – versus around $3.50 a gallon for standard petroleum fuels.
The only way the Navy fiasco looks good is by comparison to the Air Force spending $59 a gallon for alcohol-to-jet fuel and $67 per gallon for camelina-based F-22 Raptor fuel – or the Navy’s 2009 purchase of 20,000 gallons of renewable diesel for $424 per gallon!
If Mabus achieves his “goal” and “persuades” the Navy to make half of its fuel “green” by 2020, the higher cost biofuels could add $1.9 billion annually to Navy’s fuel bill, according to a Defense Department study. That extra outlay would pay for a new DDG-51 destroyer and comes as the Defense Department budget faces $13 billion in cuts for Navy shipbuilding over the next four years.
Add to that boatloads of additional taxpayer dollars that would be wasted if the Army, Air Force and Marines also switch from abundant, affordable, reliable, proven petroleum fuels to untested, impractical, unaffordable, unsustainable biofuels. The Pentagon’s green spending spree makes the General Services Administration binge on lavish conferences and entertainment look like chump change.
Worse, on top of paying these enormous sums for biofuels, the Navy and Departments of Agriculture and Energy agreed that each would “invest $170 million directly in biorefineries to kick-start the flagging industry,” Wired magazine reported. The $510 million total nearly equals the Solyndra debacle.
What’s next in the drive to end Defense Department fossil fuel use? Using fuel efficiency to justify “slimming down” armor and armament for personnel vehicles, tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and missile cruisers – making them more vulnerable to enemy fire? Or shrinking the US military to the size and capability of its French, German or Greek counterparts?
Granted, the Navy biofuels program doesn’t turn 40% of the US corn crop into ethanol – sending corn prices to record highs during this year’s prolonged drought. However, our nation does not have enough chicken fat and waste grease to fuel the Navy; collecting and refining this refuse would be a budget-busting logistical nightmare; and camelina and other non-food crops still require vast amounts of land, water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuel energy.
Growing sufficient quantities of algae to meet the Mabus-Obama green fuel pipedreams would require enormous onshore and offshore algae ponds. That would likely send environmentalists storming into courthouses.
Protecting the military from oil price spikes is an equally specious justification. If every $1 in higher oil prices costs the DOD $30 million, as White House climate czarina Heather Zichal claims, a $23 to $63 per gallon price differential between conventional and bio fuel will cost $690 million to $1.9 billion.
As to enhancing supply lines and thus national security, does Secretary Mabus intend to build enough biofuel refineries to equal the conventional refineries and fleet servicing ports worldwide that supposedly do not safeguard supplies? Or perhaps he is planning to commission specialized ships that strain algae from seawater like baleen whales, convert it to fuel onboard, and store it in tankers marked with green crosses that would protect them from enemy fire, as red crosses presumably safeguard hospital ships.
Even ignoring the absence of empirical evidence for catastrophic CO2-driven global warming, it beggars belief that the White House, Congress or DOD would even consider subjugating military preparedness, missions and safety to manmade climate change ideology. Moreover, any net carbon dioxide reductions via DOD biofuels would be more than offset by increases from China, India and other rapidly developing countries.
Fortunately, many in Congress understand that “adopting a ‘green agenda’ for national defense is a terrible misplacement of priorities,” as Arizona Senator and former Navy pilot John McCain aptly put it. House-passed legislation would bar the Defense Department from buying biofuels that cost more than conventional fuels, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has proposed similar action in the Senate.
Inhofe’s amendment to the FY-2013 National Defense Authorization Act was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, the amendment faces mostly Democrat opposition in the full chamber, and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee approved continued biofuels funding.
The usual alliance of hydrocarbon adversaries is just as vehemently opposed to bills to address national security, oil prices and over-reliance on foreign sources in a far more commonsense manner: by producing more of America’s abundant but untapped and off-limits petroleum resources. They oppose hydraulic fracturing for the centuries’ of oil and gas our nation has in its extensive shale deposits – as well as drilling for conventional deposits off our Pacific, Atlantic, Alaskan and Gulf of Mexico coastlines, within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or anywhere in the Western US states.
Rather than ensuring that our armed forces can defend America without wasting billions, President Obama and his alliance prefer to wage war on fossil fuels.
Instead of promoting biofuels, the Navy and Defense Department should be calling on Congress and the White House to increase domestic leasing and drilling in all these areas. Even a drunken sailor would understand this.

OLYMPIC ATHELETES SHOULD BE TAXED, BUT NOT BY THE IRS

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

America’s Olympic Athletes Should Be Taxed on Their Winnings (but Not by the IRS)




My friends at Americans for Tax Reform have received a bunch of attention for a new report entitled “Win Olympic Gold, Pay the IRS.”
In this clever document, they reveal that athletes could face a tax bill – to those wonderful folks at the IRS – of nearly $9,000 thanks to America’s unfriendly worldwide tax system.
The topic is even getting attention overseas. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC report.
US medal-winning athletes at the Olympics have to pay tax on their prize money – something which is proving controversial in the US. But why are athletes from the US taxed when others are not? The US is right up there in the medals table, and has produced some of the finest displays in the Olympics so far. … But not everyone is happy to hear that their Olympic medal-winning athletes are being taxed on their medal prize money. Athletes are effectively being punished for their success, argues Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican, who introduced a bill earlier this week that would eliminate tax on Olympic medals and prize money. …This, he said, is an example of the “madness” of the US tax system, which he called a “complicated and burdensome mess”.
It’s important to understand, though, that this isn’t a feel-good effort to create a special tax break. Instead, Senator Rubio is seeking to take a small step in the direction of better tax policy.
More specifically, he wants to move away from the current system of “worldwide” taxation and instead shift to “territorial” taxation, which is simply the common-sense notion of sovereignty applied to taxation. If income is earned inside a nation’s borders, that nation gets to decided how and when it is taxed.
In other words, if U.S. athletes earn income competing in the United Kingdom, it’s a matter for inland revenue, not the IRS.
Incidentally, both the flat tax and national sales tax are based on territorial taxation, and most other countries actually are ahead of the United States and use this approach. The BBC report has further details.
The Olympic example highlights what they regard as the underlying problem of the US’ so-called “worldwide” tax model. Under this system, earnings made by a US citizen abroad are liable for both local tax and US tax. Most countries in the world have a “territorial” system of tax and apply that tax just once – in the country where it is earned. With the Olympics taking place in London, the UK would, in theory, be entitled to claim tax on prize money paid to visiting athletes. But, as is standard practice for many international sporting events, it put in place a number of tax exemptions for competitors in the Olympics – including on any prize money. That means that only athletes from countries with a worldwide tax system on individual income are liable for tax on their medals. And there are only a handful of them in the world, says Daniel Mitchell, an expert on tax reform at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank – citing the Philippines and Eritrea as other examples. But with tax codes so notoriously complicated, unravelling which countries would apply this in the context of Olympic prize money is a tricky task, he says. Mitchell is a critic of the worldwide system, saying it effectively amounts to “double taxation” and leaves the US both at a competitive disadvantage, and as a bullyboy, on the world stage. “We are the 800lb (360kg) gorilla in the world economy, and we can bully other nations into helping enforce our bad tax law.”
To close out this discussion, statists prefer worldwide taxation because it undermines tax competition. This is because, under worldwide taxation, individuals and companies have no ability to escape high taxes by shifting activity to jurisdictions with better tax policy.
Indeed, this is why politicians from high-tax nations are so fixated on trying to shut down so-called tax havens. It’s difficult to enforce bad tax policy, after all, if some nations have strong human rights policies on privacy.
For all intents and purposes, a worldwide tax regime means the government gets a permanent and global claim on your income. And without having to worry about tax competition, that “claim” will get more onerous over time.
P.S. Just because a nation has a right to tax foreigners who earn income inside its borders, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go overboard. The United Kingdom shows what happens if politicians get too greedy and Spain shows what happens if marginal tax rates are reasonable.

TRUTH ABOUT GUNS

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

The Truth About Guns


The Truth About Guns

The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a lot of unfortunate misinformation about firearms. Let's try to add some facts to the justified emotion. Are Some Guns More Dangerous than Others? The shooter in Aurora had three firearms when he entered the theater: a pump action shotgun, a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun. In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don't typically jam. Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them. Instead, the focus these days is on so-called "assault weapons." Should We Be Especially Worried About Assault Weapons? Assault weapons are not usually the weapon of choice. Neither of the two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history involved assault weapons. James Huberty, who killed 20 people at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, used a shotgun, a pistol and a hunting rifle. George Hennard, who killed 22 people at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, used two ordinary pistols. Still, gun opponents seem obsessed about them. So what exactly is an "assault weapon"? What Are Assault Weapons? You would think that the definition would hinge on a weapon's fire power or its capacity to maim or kill. Not so. Assault weapons are mainly defined by their appearance. As Steve Chapman explained the other day:
Assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from ordinary semiautomatic hunting rifles. They don't fire more rapidly, they don't deliver more lethal rounds, and they don't spray bullets. They only look like military arms. The features that disqualified a gun under the federal ban were ones that didn't affect destructiveness, such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts. If accused [Aurora] killer James Holmes had been prevented from buying this gun, he could have found plenty of others that would have served his purpose just as well.
Basically, what disqualified a weapon when the short-lived assault weapons ban was in effect was looking like a military weapon. The offensive features included plastic stocks, extended ammunition clips, collapsible butt-stocks, and other decorative devices that made them look like, but not operate as, a fully functional assault rifle. Contrary to the claims that military-looking weapons are only designed to kill human beings, they are, in fact, the fastest growing segment of the hunting rifle market! What About Machine Guns? Most TV commentators who decry assault weapons imply that they are automatic — that you just pull the trigger and bullets start flying. Not so. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun on the open market in the United States for more than 80 years. However, you can obtain one under special permit and there are about 250,000 in private hands. Now here is something interesting: despite all those guns in private hands, there appears not to be a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used to commit a crime throughout the entire 80 year period. This illustrates two things: (1) the bumper stickers have it right: guns don't kill, people do; and (2) we can have reasonable restrictions on access to guns without banning them altogether. That brings us to another obsession: the insistence that guns are useless as tools of self-defense. Are Guns Useful for Self-Defense? As it turns out, they are. According to research by renowned Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that handguns appear to help women more than men. While murder rates drop when either sex carries more guns, the effect is especially pronounced when women carry. Each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men. Do More Guns Cause More Crime? In the typical Western movie, everyone has a gun. When they go into a bar, they start drinking. Then, they start insulting each other. Before long, they start shooting each other. It may be good theater, but it's lousy history. Turns out, 19th century Dodge City was more peaceful than most American cities are today! Robert Heinlein explained why: "An armed society is a polite society," he wrote. Overall, some of the most heavily-armed states have very low violent crime rates and vice versa. Also, it appears that when the good guys are armed there is less gun violence. Research by John Lott shows that allowing citizens the right to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In those states that passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later — about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for 10 years. In states that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1999, the overall occurrence of multiple-victim shootings dropped by a remarkable 67% with deaths and injuries from such shootings plummeting by 75% and 81%, respectively. And since 1997, two of eight school shootings were both stopped by citizens with guns (before police even arrived at the scene). What Does the International Evidence Show? Switzerland actually requires young males to keep weapons in their homes, as part of the country's militia. Yet no one has ever accused Switzerland of being a host to Wild West shootouts. Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Yet it too has a very low rate of violent crime.

GUNNING FOR TYRANNY

Posted BY WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Gunning For Tyranny

July 31, 2012 by
Gunning For Tyranny
PHOTOS.COM
Your current magazines are “grandfathered in.”
Late last week, as Democrats and their media minions jockeyed for position at the front of the macabre post-Aurora-massacre line of people who reflexively oppose the Bill of Rights, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) grabbed his moment in the glare. It’s well known that the space between Schumer and a working camera is far more dangerous than any place frequented by people with firearms, and Schumer’s latest publicly expressed folly was hardly surprising under the circumstances. A tragedy had occurred; and come hell or high water, Schumer was loath to miss a chance to use the coffins of the victims as a soapbox for yet another mind-numbing liberal pronouncement on the dangers of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. Worse yet, Schumer and a number of his fellow Senators were loath to miss an opportunity to force their anti-Constitutional criteria on a citizenry already suffering their presence in the halls of Congress.
Thus did Schumer proclaim:
(The) basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it known that that’s not true at all.
Personally, I think it would be smart for all of us to recognize that the Chuck Schumers of the world have hardly hidden their desire to take away our guns. In fact, the Chuck Schumers of the world are joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) of the world, among others. And they are backed by the Brady Campaign and fellow fringe anti-Bill of Rights groups in their endeavors. That’s how the Chuck Schumers of the world get away with remarks like “rational gun control” while pushing for anything but.
While Schumer took to the floor to once again rail against things he doesn’t understand (which is hardly uncommon), he did so in an effort to throw a rhetorical blanket over an offensively secretive plan to do far more than simply abrogate the right to keep and bear arms. Following the Senate approval for amendments of the abominably invasive Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (itself a redressed version of the similarly appalling Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which Representative Ron Paul rightly identified as “Big Brother writ large”), Schumer and his friends pulled a fast one. They tacked an amendment onto the bill which might as well be known as the “Aurora Amendment.” Rather than try to take on the 2nd Amendment from the front, Schumer and his accomplices pinned their pusillanimous program to ban everything north of your daughter’s pink .22 Crickett onto the Federal cyberspying bill.
If Schumer, et al.’s S.A. 2575 seems familiar to observers of dastardly Democrat deeds, that’s because it is essentially a backdoor attempt to reintroduce the infamous “assault weapons ban” of years past. The new amendment is, in fact, virtually identical to the gun-ban bill introduced by Lautenberg. Feinstein sponsored the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. S.A. 2575 would, without a separate vote, “make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition,” according to The Hill. It’s worth noting that your current magazines, whether they be the 30-rounders most of us use for our ARs or one of those unwieldy 31 round monsters the Koreans make for the Glock 22 .40 caliber, are “grandfathered in.”
Before you panic and open a new tab on your browser so you can begin ordering replacement magazines for your AR-15, keep in mind that the bill still has to pass the Senate. That means the Senate will actually have to do something proactive — not exactly a strong suit under the listless leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). And even if it does manage to make its way out of that wrinkled group, it’s as likely to pass the House as Chuck Schumer is to win the next 3-gun match at the local range.
The real problem with Schumer’s latest attempted abrogation of our Constitutionally protected rights — his protestations to the contrary be damned — is the same one that has plagued the Nation for decades: The basic premise of gun-ban proponents is fatally flawed. While liberals would ultimately prefer to relieve us all of our weapons, they know that will fly like a stone kite. So they try their usual incrementalist tack. They can’t get the guns, so they’ll limit the magazine capacity.
(Author’s aside: Stop saying “clips.” They’re not clips; they’re magazines. Your use of inaccurate descriptives reveals much more about you than it does about your intended targets. Likewise, weapons like my AR and my 1911 are not “automatic,” they’re semi-automatic: one round per trigger pull. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States without specialized permits since the early 1930s. Your argument might resonate more if you sounded even vaguely like you knew what the hell you were talking about. Imagine how you would feel if a conservative suggested cutting off taxpayer funding for the liberal twaddle on PBS with references to “Oliver the Grouch” on “Sesame Lane.”)
Some of Schumer’s carrion-feeding compatriots have even attempted to point to Aurora, Colo., suspect James Holmes’s ownership of a 100-round drum as proof of the need to limit magazine capacity. That argument falls apart fairly quickly when you realize the magazine wasn’t used during the shooting. The shooter didn’t need it; he had the advantage of knowing that anti-Bill of Rights activists like Schumer had already disarmed his victims through draconian restrictions that disallow any carry inside the Aurora city limits. It’s also worth noting that anyone who has tried to fire an AR with a 100-round drum magazine has recognized fairly quickly that it’s a fairly miserable experience — and that’s just the drudgery of loading the magazine itself.
For his part, Schumer added another amendment to his defense of the indefensible, suggesting:
We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle…Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties.
Pardon my saying so, Senator, but the moment you and your cabal of Brady-backed gun grabbers began discussing limiting my Constitutional rights, you put “reasonableness (sic)” in the rearview mirror. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about agreeing to abrogate the Bill of Rights. There is no middle ground. And perhaps if people like you didn’t consistently focus on guns as opposed to criminals who misuse them, we “might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties.” My suggestion is to arrest the Attorney General. At the very least, you’d be sending a strong message that arming homicidal narcoterrorists is generally frowned upon.
And once anyone offers Schumer and the Democrats “an agreement in the middle,” where does that leave the end? Should we agree to “the middle” on free speech? Perhaps allow some quartering of troops in our homes, but only squad-sized or smaller? Possibly we could compromise on… Come to think of it, the Federal government has already made a practice of doing everything to the Bill of Rights besides murdering it and burying it in Schumer’s backyard. Anyone who has watched as Transportation Security Administration agents have searched a handicapped person’s colostomy bag for explosives can testify that the 4th Amendment is certainly on life support, if it isn’t dead already.
Democratic attempts to institute limitations on the Bill of Rights routinely devolve into the dangerous or the absurd — as often as not, both. S.A. 2575 will have precisely the same prophylactic effect on violent crime as Aurora’s ban: none, at best. Meanwhile, the liberal arguments backing Schumer border on the absurd. Of course the Framers of the Constitution lived in a world with flintlocks and the like. Lest anyone stand on that wobbly rhetorical table, imagine the Framers’ reaction to the liberal argument in favor of Constitutionally protected partial-birth abortion.
The late, great Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” He was right. But defending liberty against the encroachment of people like Schumer is anything but extreme.

THE FALSE FLAG GUN GRAB

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

The False Flag Gun Grab

July 30, 2012 by
The False Flag Gun Grab
With the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations ongoing (and going badly for the gun grabbers and elite power brokers), a game-changer was needed. It came in the form of James Holmes, “The Joker” who allegedly shot up a Colorado movie theater July 20.
Holmes is almost certainly a patsy — a term used to describe those used by government agents to pull off their hits or staged false flag events. There are just too many questionable aspects to the whole story — and Holmes himself — for the incident to have gone down as depicted by government authorities.
The shooting has given President Barack Obama the cover he needs to both go after guns and sign the treaty. He was receiving a lot of pressure from his American gun-grabbing constituency to sign the treaty. But he was also receiving a lot of pushback from Congress — no doubt pressured by the powerful and much-feared National Rifle Association lobby — and a growing number of Americans concerned about Obama’s gun-grabbing proclivities.
Here’s what we know: Holmes was operating under a government grant that paid him $26,000 per year to work in the study of neurosciences. He was a medical student seeking a Ph.D. at the University of Colorado. Several agencies of the U.S. government have long funded neuroscience research.
For more than 20 years, beginning in the 1950s, the CIA funded a project called MK-Ultra. The research for those mind-control experiments was undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies. This program came to light during the Senate’s Church Committee hearing and the Presidential Rockefeller Commission in the 1970s.
While that program was supposedly suspended in the 1970s, CIA whistleblowers, including 14-year veteran CIA agent Victor Marchetti, have stated in various interviews that the agency routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind-control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a “cover story.”
In MK-Ultra, researchers used mind-altering drugs, hypnosis and other methods on test subjects. Many people believe that Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner and Jim Jones and the Jonestown cult were part of CIA MK-Ultra operations.
In fact, Holmes is behaving much like Sirhan did after shooting Kennedy. He’s telling guards he has no memory of the shooting and doesn’t understand why he’s in jail. During his court appearance, he behaved oddly, much like someone under the influence of drugs.
Holmes amassed an arsenal of weapons, costing as much as $20,000 by some estimates, even though his only known source of income was the grant. He also apparently was trained in the use of explosives. His apartment was booby-trapped with devices that police called “sophisticated” flammable devices like none they had ever seen.
Eyewitnesses claim Holmes had help. Various news agencies quote witnesses as saying someone opened the emergency door for him and that at least two people were throwing tear gas grenades in the theater. A second gas mask and bloody knife were found on ground at the end of a blood trail on the far end of the theater from where Holmes was arrested. This indicates an accomplice who may have been injured or taken an injured hostage with him. Police say Holmes bought a ticket and propped open the emergency door himself.
Holmes calmly walked through the crowd firing his shotgun, then his Glock, then his rifle. After the shooting, he surrendered to police and told them about the booby traps in his apartment.
The assault was obviously well planned and well financed. But Holmes was described by those who know him as shy and introverted and incapable of pulling off such an attack.
“There was no way I thought he could have the capacity to commit an atrocity like this,” said [Billy] Kromka, who is from Aurora. Mr. Kromka said that Mr. Holmes’s “disposition was a little off” and that he could be socially awkward, one of the quieter people in the lab. He spent much of his time immersed in his computer, often participating in role-playing online games.
Beyond a traffic ticket, Holmes had no criminal history. In fact, it appears he has no history at all. Google searches reveal nothing about him. This is highly unusual in today’s society where personal privacy is nonexistent.
And then there’s the curious incident of the disappearing FBI warning about a possible movie theater shooting issued May 17 but pulled from Federal websites when bloggers brought attention to it.
Law enforcement also claims Holmes sent a package to a psychiatrist that outlined his plans. But stories about that are being changed faster than a baby’s diaper: It sat on a dock; it sat in a mail room; it didn’t get there until Monday.
The bodies had not even been removed from the theater before New York City nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg was calling for stronger gun-control laws and encouraging police officers to go on strike until gun laws were passed. Of course, neither strong gun laws nor police saved movie-shooting victims.
Aurora, Colo., has some of its State’s most stringent gun laws:
  • “Dangerous weapons” including firearms prohibited.
  • Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
  • Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
  • Unlawful to carry concealed “dangerous weapon.”
  • Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
  • Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant.
  • Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
  • Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.
And, of course, all the explosives Holmes had planted in his apartment were illegal.
The theater had a no-guns policy, ensuring that the shooter would be able to carry out his attack unmolested. The police who Bloomberg wants to be the citizen’s only defense sat outside assessing the situation and waiting on gas masks while shots were heard from inside.
The Aurora theater shooting has all the marks of a false flag operation designed to shred the 2nd Amendment and give impetus to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which Obama has said he wants to sign. Just like Operation Fast and Furious, it’s a concerted effort by the elites to instigate violence against innocent people to further their goal of disarming Americans.
And this government and others throughout history have used false flag events to advance their agendas. Among them the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, 9/11 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The FBI is known to create terrorists so it can swoop in to save the day. And governments have lied to their subjects from the beginning of time.
More and more, it looks like the American people are once again victims of their own terrorist government.

 by wp:   Once again we face the probability that the Federal Government, to advance its progressive agendas , is using methods of trying to control what we think that have gone past the bounds of decency and morality.  This has become the favored way to force their ideology on the American People as they continue their program of the subjugation of America to their Communist philosophy.  How much longer will we let them get by with causing the death of American citizens in their grab for total power???





Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...