Friday, December 28, 2012

Some different views on the "Fiscal Cliff".

“Fiscal Cliff” put in a much better perspective
Lesson # 1:
  • U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
  • Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
  • New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000
  • National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000
  • Recent Budget cuts: 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
  • Annual family income: $21,700
  • Money the family spent: $38,200
  • New debt on the credit card: $16,500
  • Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
  • Total budget cuts so far: $385
Got it?…. OK now…
Lesson # 2
Here’s another way of looking at the Debt Ceiling:
Let’s say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood… and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do?

Raise the ceiling or remove the shit?

Finally, there has been a lot of talk about the amateurish, inexperienced and bungled fiscal policies of Barack Hussein Obama and how he has done a poor job running the country and ruining our economy. Just for a moment suppose all of these failed policies were not an accident or the result of his lack of experience. Suppose they were designed to fail just like all the billions of stimulus dollars given to the solar energy companies that subsequently went bankrupt. Suppose his intention was to downgrade the status and world influence of America as he has already succeeded in downgrading our credit rating. Suppose for a moment that Obama is actually accomplishing everything he intended to do. If these suppositions are correct then is he waging war on us?



The irrefutable logic is  
The asinine, illogical logic of liberals is that we will somehow all be safer if the law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. Just as safe as we are now in gun-free zones in schools and shopping malls.
Dianne Feinstein To Introduce Sweeping Gun Control Bill On First Day Of Congress
December 28, 2012
in Front Page, U.S. Constitution
Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to introduce sweeping gun-control legislation at the beginning of the congressional session in January.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession” of certain weapons, the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

The senator describes the proposal as a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Feinstein’s legislation ban scores of firearms, including military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also calls for the creation of a federal register that would require millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed.
AND THE NEXT STEP AFTER REGISTRATION IS CONFISCATION. The knock on the door at 2 AM is just a stroke of the pen away.

Now I wonder where all those Democrats will stand on this issue that the NRA helped to get elected. 
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo On Gun Control: ‘Confiscation Could Be An Option’
In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he’d like the state’s legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including “confiscation” of “assault” weapons or “mandatory sales to the state” and “permitting.” 
The state legislature will likely debate new gun-related laws after the governor introduces the thought in his upcoming State of the State address on January 9th, 2013.
TheBlaze reports that Cuomo told Albany’s WGDJ-AM that while gun control hasn’t been on the docket recently, he plans to reach out to state legislators and eventually submit a proposal for new laws. One of his stated goals is to change state laws regarding the possession of so-called “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
According to Cuomo, his state’s existing laws regarding those matters have “more holes than Swiss cheese.”
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said, echoing the sentiment of many other pro-gun control advocates before him, while noting: “I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.
I think the governor of New York jumped the gun (no pun intended) on this announcement. He should have waited until after he got the gun owners to register their guns first. And to think that Albany, New York is only 167 miles away from Lexington, Massachusetts. 

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Gun Control: The illogical logic of liberals.

I remember reading a political satire many years ago written by Al Capp who said that a Liberal is just a Conservative who hadn't been mugged yet. Many people don't have to wait for that mind-altering moment when a thug knocks you to the ground to realize that we should all have the right to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, today, liberals control most of what we watch, hear and read so it would seem that the majority of people (on television, at least) are against the right to self-defense, especially when it involves the use of a gun. Liberals also have the unique ability to say the most profound things and convince themselves how brilliant they are but if a Conservative says the same thing, they are blasted as being so monumentally ignorant.
The two largest teachers unions are emphatically against arming teachers, although some teachers caught up in gun violence in school might disagree. Several school administrators want to allocate more money on school counselors and psychologists. The president of the Brady Campaign said arming teachers sends the wrong message to students. “It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns,” Gross said.

Duh? Why, yes, Mr. Gross, you are absolutely right, even in your ridicule. When a homicidal maniac is aiming a gun at you, the only way to stop him is to do something violent - like shooting him, or would you prefer that your school psychologist might suddenly appear from his office like some movie super-hero and try to talk the gunman out of it. Recall those famous words from Al Capp, when the gunman points his weapon at you, your liberal views fly out the window and you instantly become a pro-gun conservative and hope and pray you find a way to survive, wishing you had a gun to defend yourself. But hindsight always has 20-20 vision.
When you say it, its smart; when I say it, its stupid. /Big Journalism
Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

by John Nolte 21 Dec 2012

Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can't stop howling ridicule at the NRA's idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA's idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media's going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch.

This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn't care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win.

The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.

In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.

The media is not only so driven to ensure Sandy Hook is used to win this round on gun control that they've become morally blinded to what really needs to be done to immediately secure our schools; they've lost their grip historically and politically.

Think about it: The media is entering a new year attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with a policeman in their school.

Off the rails doesn’t even begin to describe it.
The leftist Liberal controlled news media blasted the NRA for daring to suggest placing an armed security guard in every school. While the NRA lost sight of the implication of their suggestion that only the Federal government could provide the answer to the local problem of school safety, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre was absolutely correct in placing the blame on Hollywood and the violent video games that are sold to young people. Hollywood thrives on excessive gore and violence in many of their films. And many teenagers and young adults, especially the socially handicapped, introverted loners, are addicted to these video games often spending countless hours playing them in their alter-ego, roll playing avatars. Other groups agreed.
Christian Science Monitor
Video games and shooting: Is the NRA right?
After a week of silence following the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 first graders and six staff in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association blamed the entertainment industry – specifically the producers of violent video games for inciting what has become a pattern of gun violence in the United States.

In describing the industry, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

Mr. LaPierre faulted the news media for failing to report on “vicious, violent video games” such as “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Kombat,” and “Splatterhouse” as egregious examples. He also singled out “Kindergarten Killer,” a free, fairly obscure online game.

“How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?” he asked reporters.
But the U.S. Supreme Court in its moment of cloistered ignorance said that any controls over the video gaming industry would be a violation of the First Amendment. I really think there could have been some common ground agreement on how best to handle this. After all we have minimum ages for drinking and driving and buying cigarettes so why not restrict the age to buying a violent video game until at least the person has matured a bit and not have such a young impressionable mind.

US Supreme Court strikes down violent video game law
By Emil Protalinski
On June 27, 2011, 1:00 PM EST
video games, supreme court, violen
The US Supreme Court today sided with the video game industry, in the six-year legal match with California lawmakers who wanted to make it a crime for anyone in the state to sell violent games to kids. In a 7-2 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law does not comport with the First Amendment.

Others joined in dissent as the court found no compelling evidence to state that video games are more damaging to children than other forms of media, such as film or music. This is a huge step for video games, as it should stop the spread of expensive legislation hurting the industry.
California's argument was that because video games are interactive, they are more problematic because the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The Supreme Court was not persuaded. Here's what the official decision stated (PDF):
Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And "the basic principles of freedom of speech…do not vary" with a new and different communication medium.
Read more at:
Thanks to the successful efforts of the ACLU, mentally challenged people have been afforded the same rights as normal people in our society. With books filled with various psychological forms of mental diseases, many of which have violent tendencies, the mentally ill are allowed free access to our society and there is no database to identify them that could be accessed to perform a background check prior to a gun purchase. The most recent shooting events that received the greatest publicity were committed by persons suffering from some form of mental illness. Jared Lee Loughner, diagnosed with schizophrenia, shot 19 people in Tuscon, Arizona including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six. James Eagan Holmes, suffering from mental illness, shot 59 people and killed 12 in Aurora, Colorado. Nancy Lanza tried to place her son Adam in psychiatric care but before she could her son killed her with her own gun and then went on a killing spree at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut murdering 20 little children and six adults. None of these horrific incidents involved sane people. Yet the news media has put the blame on the guns, not the killers. But the worst possible fallout from all of these shootings is the national celebrity status the news media made of the killers. All of those introverted video game addicts that play the blood-splattered games in the darkness of their bedrooms must be sorely tempted to become wannabe copycats.
Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told WND that despite calls by media and Democrats for gun control, his organization has received strong support from the public, particularly since his well-circulated interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Pratt argued that the way to prevent shootings like those at Sandy Hook is to get rid of laws that prevent people from protecting themselves.

“The feedback that we have gotten from people who were not members of Gun Owners of America was to the effect of it’s about time somebody said that,” Pratt told WND. “It’s been very affirming.”
FOX News

Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows

Published December 24, 2012

In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

But crime trends over the past few decades offer a mixed verdict on whether renewing the ban would reduce the kinds of mass shootings that have spurred calls for its re-enactment in the first place.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.

Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

Read more:
Statistics show that in every civilized country that has prohibited or restricted the ownership and possession of guns the crime rate has escalated. It happened in Australia in 1995 and in Great Britain in 1997 and in both countries that passed these restrictive gun laws  the rate of violent crime has exploded. The British newspaper Daily Mail ran this story three years ago. The story points out that, "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Read more:
One side note regarding the difference between America and the British Empire also needs to be explained. In the United Kingdom people are subjects of the crown but in the United States we are called citizens. Citizens have rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our government serves at the will of the people. In the U.K. people are subjects, like the serfs in heraldic days and they have permissions granted or denied at the whim of their political leaders, which may explain why they meekly turned in their guns when they were told to do so. The one irrefutable fact appears to be that in any country only law-abiding people obey the laws and when the guns were banned, only those who obeyed the law turned them in. The criminal element, which by their very nature are outlaws, simply ignored the ban on guns.
Another distinction that sets Americans apart from the world, especially Great Britain, is our historic regard for guns as a means to fight tyranny. It was the patriots in Lexington and Concord in 1776 that opposed the British crown orders to confiscate our weapons that set off the American Revolution. And our Founding Fathers wrote that necessity for guns in  the Second Amendment to our Constitution. 
Is there a pattern to the way these events are being handled by our liberal leaders? All or most of the mass murderers suffer from mental illness, all are allowed on the streets, all have no psychiatric background checks to restrict their gun purchases, and the only answer to every event is for leftist politicians and liberal news media calling for a ban on guns. It sure sounds like what the politicians are really after is to disarm America. Yeah, gun control works. Ask the experts.

In 1911,

Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929,

the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
About 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935

China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and Exterminated

In 1938

Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews and others unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956

Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964

Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970

Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated

In the 20th Century

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated 
because of gun control.

In the 21st Century, will Americans be next?


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Monday, December 24, 2012

Christmas Greetings.

Wishing everyone who pauses here upon this humble blog,
  a Blessed Christmas, a Holy Christmas and Merry Christmas. And please remember that 
Jesus is the reason for the season.
"Adoration of the Shepherds" by Gerard van Honthorst, 1622

Sunday, December 23, 2012

What can be worse than a hypocrite? How about a traitor? No, None Dare Call It Treason any more.

It goes beyond political hypocrisy and outright stupidity when a private sector businessman is put in charge of a presidential commission to improve our economy and create jobs while at the same time he takes work done by his own company out of the United States and sends it to China. In an article published in The Washington Free Beacon, Bill Gertz reports that Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which advises Barack Obama on ways to improve the nation’s economy and create jobs, has entered into an agreement with Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a Wilmington, N.C., company, to make reactor vessels in China for a nuclear plant it hopes to build in India. As Terresa Monroe-Hamilton wrote in her Noisy Room Blog,
Big Business and Marxist Collusion – Bourgeois Socialism
Dec 22nd, 2012 by
We now have many, many examples of these elitists who have crawled into bed with the Marxists… From Warren Buffet, to Jeffrey Immelt of GE, the list is long and inglorious. These are wealthy and powerful businessmen and women looking for security in the arms of Comrade Obama while keeping the proletariat riffraff (that would be you and me) in check and busily working for them and their luxuries in a slavish society that is forcefully equal in misery, except for the upper levels of the bourgeois socialists. GE is probably the worst of the worst. Immelt praises the Chinese communists:
Why not? GE, under Obama’s guidance, has moved a great deal of their business into China where labor is cheaper and regulation and taxation are far less. And now comes word that GE will make nuclear power plant parts in China. Isn’t that sleeping with the enemy? Except, I’m no longer sure who the enemy is. From Bill Gertz at The Washington Free Beacon:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is supporting a bid by General Electric to export jobs and nuclear technology to China by seeking assurances from Beijing that it will not steal or transfer valuable reactor technology, the Free Beacon has learned.
Clinton’s support for a future deal with GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a Wilmington, N.C., company, to make reactor vessels in China for a nuclear plant it hopes to build in India was disclosed in a cable sent Nov. 21 to the United States Embassy in Beijing.
The cable directs embassy officials to seek Beijing’s assurances that GE-Hitachi nuclear technology would not be transferred to other states or stolen, as outlined under the terms of a 2003 U.S.-China agreement on nuclear technology cooperation.
Disclosure of the Obama administration’s support for GE-Hitachi’s bid to manufacture nuclear goods in China comes as GE’s chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, continues to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which advises President Barack Obama on ways to improve the nation’s economy and create jobs.
GE also came under fire last year from Pentagon technology security officials over the company’s joint venture with the state-run Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC) over concerns China would covertly obtain U.S. jet avionics technology that could bolster its growing force of advanced jets.
Immelt is an admirer of Mao and of Barack Obama. Generally, he just loves power. But, his vehicle of choice is Marxism. And GE has a long history of this, but more on that in a minute. Not only is GE smooching with China, they are actively (and knowingly) helping China get nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan – all with Obama’s blessing. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Nope that’s just the nuclear fallout.

While you see all these wealthy companies including Walmart, Pepsi, the big banks, Wall Street, media and a whole slew of others jumping on Obama’s red train, you might ask yourself why? Aren’t they going to be taxed more? Clearly these mega companies did not get the size they are by playing by the same rules you and I do. They know how to ‘shelter’ their companies from most of the taxation and other annoyances. And as an added bennie, if they sneak into the ever-expanding Marxist bed, they are given nifty tax breaks, regulation waivers and other money making contracts. All they have to do is kneel before the state and they can have it all. What’s the going price for a little monetary soul between Marxists these days? About 30 pieces of silver I’d wager. By swearing their allegiance to the government, they will be protected from the commoners – they will be taken into the elite circles where they will be served by their American subjects. Such are the enraptured power dreams of the bourgeois socialists.
I wonder what the union workers at General Electric feel about this sell out? Their high-paying jobs in the USA are being replaced by low-paying, non-union Chinese workers. Is it possible this union was one of the few who did not support and work for Obama's campaign and this is some kind of retribution? But it seems that General Electric isn't alone in their sell-out. Here is the rest of the post from
Know who else did this? Why, Adolph Hitler of course. That’s right. Many of the companies that aligned with Nazi Germany are still in business today. Prepare to be enlightened:
As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government’s political and military goals.
From Business Pundit:
  • General Electric
    In 1946 General Electric was fined by the US government owing to its nefarious wartime activities. In partnership with Krupp, a German manufacturing firm, General Electric deliberately and artificially raised the price of tungsten carbide, a material that was vital for machining metals necessary for the war effort. Though only fined $36,000 in total, General Electric made around $1.5 million out of this scam in 1936 alone, hampering the war effort and increasing the cost of defeating the Nazis. GE also bought shares in Siemens before war broke out, making them complicit in the use of slave labor to build the very same gas chambers where many of the stricken laborers met their end.
  • BMW
    BMW has admitted using up to 30,000 forced laborers during the war. These POWs, slave laborers and inmates of concentration camps produced engines for the Luftwaffe and so were forced to aid the regime in defending itself against those who were trying to save them. BMW focused solely on aircraft and motorcycle manufacture during the war, with no pretense of being anything other than a supplier of war machinery to the Nazis.
  • Nestle
    In 2000, Nestlé paid over $14.5 million into a fund to try to deal with claims of slave labor suffered at their hands from Holocaust survivors and Jewish organizations. The firm has admitted that it acquired a company in 1947 that had used forced labor during the war and has also stated that “[It] is either certain or it may be assumed that some corporations of the Nestlé Group that were active in countries controlled by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime employed forced laborers.” Nestlé helped with the financing of a Nazi party in Switzerland in 1939 and ended up winning a lucrative contract, supplying the entire chocolate needs of the German army during World War II.
  • Novartis
    Bayer, though notorious for its origins as a sub-division of the manufacturer that made the Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, isn’t the only pharmaceutical company with skeletons in its closet. The Swiss chemical companies Ciba and Sandoz merged to form Novartis, most famous for its drug, Ritalin. In 1933, Ciba’s Berlin branch fired all of the Jewish members of its board of directors and replaced them with more “acceptable” Aryan personnel; meanwhile, Sandoz was busy doing the same with its chairman. The companies manufactured dyes, drugs and chemicals for the Nazis during the war. Novartis has owned up to its culpability and tried to make amends in the manner of other complicit firms by contributing $15 million towards a Swiss fund for compensation to the victims of the Nazis.
  • Allianz
    Allianz is the twelfth largest financial services company in the world. Founded in Germany in 1890, it’s no surprise that they were the largest insurer in Germany when the Nazis came to power. As such, they quickly became heavily involved with the Nazi regime. Their CEO, Kurt Schmitt, was also Hitler’s economics minister, and the company insured the facilities and personnel at Auschwitz. Their Director General was in charge of the policy that paid the Nazi state instead of the rightful beneficiaries when Jewish property was damaged following Kristallnacht. What’s more, the company worked closely with the Nazi government to track down the life insurance policies of German Jews sent to the death camps and, during the war, insured the possessions stripped from those same Jewish people on behalf of the Nazis.
  • Coca-Cola
    Fanta is a tasty orange-flavored drink that was originally designed specifically for the Nazis. That’s right, ingredients for the cola that gives the brand its name were difficult to import, so the manager of Coca-Cola’s German operation, Max Keith, came up with a new drink that could be made with available ingredients. In 1941, Fanta debuted on the German market. Max Keith was not himself a Nazi, but his efforts to keep the Coca-Cola operation alive through the war meant that Coca-Cola pocketed some handsome profits and could return to distributing Coke to American GIs stationed in Europe as soon as the war was over.
  • Kodak
    When you think Kodak, you think of happy family photographs and memories caught on film, but what you should really be considering is the slave labor that the German branch of the firm used during World War II. Kodak’s subsidiaries in neutral European countries did brisk business with the Nazis, providing them with both a market for their goods and valuable foreign currency. The Portuguese branch even sent its profits to the branch in the Hague, which was under Nazi occupation at the time. What’s more, this company wasn’t just making cameras; they expanded into the manufacture of triggers, detonators and other military goods for the Germans.
  • Random House
    You may not have heard of Bertelsmann A.G. but you will have heard of the books published by its many subsidiaries, including Random House, Bantam Books and Doubleday. During Nazi rule, Bertelsmann published propaganda and Nazi literature such as “Sterilization and Euthanasia: A Contribution to Applied Christian Ethics.” They even published works by Will Vesper, who had given a rousing speech at the book-burning in 1933. Random House courted Nazi controversy again in 1997 when they added, “a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.” to the Webster’s dictionary definition of Nazi, prompting the Anti-Defamation League to say that it “trivializes and denies the murderous intent and actions of the Nazi regime.”
  • Ford
    Henry Ford himself was a notorious anti-Semite, publishing a collection of articles under the charming title, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford even sponsored his own newspaper which he used as a propaganda piece, blaming the Jews for World War I, and in 1938 he received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal Nazi Germany awarded to foreign citizens. Ford’s German operation produced one third of the militarized trucks used by the German army during the war, with much of the labor done by prisoners. What’s even more shocking is that Ford may have used forced labor as early as 1940 — when the American arm of the company still had complete control.
  • Chase
    On reflection, the collusion of Chase Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase), with the Nazis isn’t so surprising. One of its major shareholders, J.D. Rockefeller, had directly funded Nazi eugenics experiments before the war. Between 1936 and 1941, Chase and other US banks helped the Germans raise over $20 million in dollar exchange, netting over $1.2 million in commission — of which Chase pocketed a cool $500,000. That was a lot of money at the time. The fact that the German marks used to fund the operation came from Jews who had fled Nazi Germany didn’t seem to bother Chase — in fact they upped their business after Kristallnacht (the night Jews throughout Nazi Germany and Austria were systematically attacked by mobs in 1938). Chase also froze the accounts of French Jews in occupied France before the Nazis had even gotten around to asking them to.
Do you see a pattern here? I sure as hell do. Businesses were highly organized (uber community organizers) under Hitler. Hugo Boss designed the militarized uniforms of the SS (as well as the brown shirts of the SA and the Hitler Youth); Volkswagen designed the Beetle at Hitler’s behest and mass produced them using slave labor; Standard Oil provided the gas for the German planes; and IBM designed the punch cards that were used to systematize the extermination of people by race and class.
Charming. All in the name of big business and it is happening again – now in America. What this means for all of America in the end with wealth redistribution is trickle-up poverty. The revenge of our anti-colonialist Marxist leaders will be complete. The Constitution will be no more and in its place will be a new Motherland. When big business colludes with a Marxist government, very bad things happen. Just look at history and you will see our future. Remember, all roads in this realm lead to communism and death. Who needs a Mayan apocalypse when you have Obama?
Years ago they used to call this "Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy" and that was the definition of the crime of Treason. Today its called Big Business and Global Economics. "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."  Sir John Harington (or Harrington) (August 4, 1561 – November 20, 1612) Quoted from Wikipedia.


Saturday, December 22, 2012

"There are no guns in my house" and why the Gallup Poll takers and the politicians don't understand the nature of the problem.

A full-page story appeared today in the Kentucky Enquirer on gun ownership titled: "Guns Here and in America" written by Kimball Perry. It contains a lot of information derived from polls taken over the years by the noted Gallup survey company.  The gist of the story was contained in this single paragraph:
Gallup has polled Americans since 1959 about whether they had a gun in their home. When the pollster last asked the question in fall 2011, 45 percent of U.S. households said yes – beneath the high of 50 percent in 1968, but a steady increase from the low of 34 percent in 1996. But the 2011 version of the National Opinion Research Center's influential General Social Survey showed gun ownership at 32.3 percent of U.S. households, a steady drop from 49.1 percent of households with guns in 1973.
My apologies.
Yesterday, I received an email from a reader with a genuinely sincere criticism over my attempt to explain the figures I quoted from the Kentucky Enquirer story. I took another look at what I wrote and spotted the places he did not understand and it seems the mistake was partially mine. I have rewritten the paragraph and replaced the original with the following three paragraphs below.

According to the published story in the Enquirer, two different survey groups have been tracking gun ownership in America and the numbers from both groups were referenced in the story. What was missing from the story was a timeline that associated an event with the yearly poll results. The Gallup polls indicate that by 1968, 50% of Americans admitted to having a gun in their homes, (but omits the detail that this was the year the first gun control laws were passed that created the BATF Firearms Transaction Record, form 4473) but then by 1996 only 34% said they had a gun in their homes (also failing to mention this was when the Assault Rifle ban was passed) so Gallup missed the clue that some people polled were possibly denying their gun ownership. Then in 2011 Gallup's gun poll came up with 45% of respondents admitting they had a gun in their home. Assuming some people were still giving untruthful responses, the increase could be accounted for by the surge in gun purchases made after the 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama, a fact that has been widely reported in the mainstream news media.

But another polling group, the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, claims its poll says gun ownership dropped even further in 2011 to 32.3%, "a steady drop from 49.1% of household with guns in 1973." The difference between these two polling groups is almost 13%.

Two theories could be given to account for these numbers. One may be that Gallup is a more recognizable name than the National Opinion Research Center so possibly more people surveyed were open to give Gallup more candid replies about their guns. Secondly, there is still the question of a growing lack of trust for the government so even more people were hiding the truth from both poll takers as the years went by. After all, each of time-line points were associated with an increase in government restrictions on guns.  I went to the Gallup web site to see what else it said on the subject and found this little disclaimer at the bottom of the page, "In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls." No further explanations were given. While that disclaimer may be for a general purpose, I suspect that it simply means that not every answer to the poll takers questions were truthful. The bold truth is that gun ownership has been surging within the last 10 years while gun owners have been increasingly distrustful of the government and has probably been on a gradual increase since 1968. Since most survey polls resort to simple Yes or No answers, I have never read of any poll that included the option of "None of your business" as a choice.

From talking to others about gun ownership and mainly from reading comments posted on the Internet it seems that there is a large number of people who do not trust the government with their personal information and likewise do not trust random phone calls from poll takers. So the polls taken over the years asking people if they own a gun need to have a few additional elements written into their algorithms to be accurate. Such as:
1. How many people hung up the phone when you asked this question?
2. How many people declined to participate in the telephone survey all together?
3. How many people were aware that the survey was about gun ownership before they were asked any questions?
4. How many people actually gave honest answers?

The earliest doubt concerning government knowledge of private gun ownership began during the Clinton administration when the so-called Assault Weapon ban was passed. Law abiding citizens know that they are no threat to public safety and they also know that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on guns and would never register them if that became a requirement. The old adage: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a perfect example. The numbers of people who were concerned over government confiscation of privately owned guns dramatically increased following 9-11 and the passage of The Patriot Act, which became the first attack on our Bill of Rights. When the Democrats nominated Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and his background involvement with communists and terrorists became public knowledge, gun owners began to dread the day when he got elected. Even though Obama often said he supported the Second Amendment, most conservatives did not believe him. For many years there has been a widespread belief that America would one day follow the path to totalitarian dictatorship and like past history elsewhere the first act would be the disarming of our citizens. Because of these fears, I strongly believe that many, if not most, gun owners would be very reluctant to tell anyone except another gun owner about their guns. Regarding the gathering of information on gun ownership, with the advent of electronic record keeping and government intrusion into health care, people are talking about a rather uncomfortable question they have recently been asked by their family doctors: Do you have a gun in your house? It is widely known that the Federal government will soon, if not now, be able to access your personal medical records and those questions and answers recorded by your doctor are becoming very suspicious. So once again, if people are forewarned to look out for it, they will not be revealing anything.

While it is true that most guns being purchased today are being bought by people who already own guns, there are still many first-time gun buyers because more and more people are realizing that something terrible is about to happen. These people are not just the so-called Survivalists that stock up a year's worth of food or go off the grid, they are ordinary people who read the news every day. So one more question that the poll takers haven't asked is: Have you just bought your first gun? I think that in light of the surge in gun purchases in the last four years that the honest answer to that is quite significant. It wasn't without some biting truth that our Marxist/Socialist leader Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the distinction of The Best Gun Salesman of the Year.
The first salvo on the anticipated move to confiscate guns was reported yesterday on the web site Townhall. It has been widely suspected that more Democrats across the country will be echoing similar sentiments.

New York Governor: Gun Confiscation on the Table

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is getting his gun control proposals ready and they're looking pretty unconstitutional.
He added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.
Barack Hussein Obama, while lying about his support for the Second Amendment, has been very supportive of the upcoming United Nations Small Arms Treaty that he is expected to try and ram through the U.S. Senate for approval. Obama needs this U.N. treaty so he can absolve himself of the guilt of being personally responsible for disarming our citizens. All he was looking for was an excuse to do so and the tragic events last week at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was just what he needed. If he is unable to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve the treaty he may well try to implement some form of gun control through one of his favorite Executive Orders. Obama has already declared that Congress seems to be an impediment to his legislation demands and he would like to bypass them completely.
The new polls being taken now on the public approval of gun control will come in the midst of the emotional onslaught being broadcast on a daily basis by the leftist news media. The purpose of the polls is to influence the Congress in their moment of passion so they will likely contain twisted and biased results. After all, if you don't ask the right questions you won't get the right answers, if anyone wants to answer truthfully. All of this following the recent affirmations by the U.S. Supreme Court on the rights of citizens in America to own firearms would seem very contradictory. Virtually nothing is being said about the cases supported by the ACLU on the so-called "rights" of mentally ill people to be kept out of mental hospitals or off some registration lists that would be checked before a gun purchase is made. And while some areas are discussing placing a police officer in every school, a very expensive proposal that most districts could not afford, little else is being said about have some designated school employees trained and armed with a gun as a last resort. That suggestion most likely contradicts the phobia most academics have about guns and zero-tolerance policies.
Beware of the false prophets from the NRA.
Yesterday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre rejected calls for more gun restrictions, and instead stated that "gun-free" zones made schools less safe by inviting criminals with guns into unprotected areas. He said, quite correctly , "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." But what he did not say was far more important. The influential NRA that has been habitually supportive of numerous Democrats who have promised to support the Second Amendment. The NRA was responsible for giving numerical control of Congress in 2008 to the Democratic Party through their endorsements of 53 candidates. Read more here. They tried again in 2010 but by then the TEA Party movement limited the NRA success to only 21 Democrats. Two years ago I discovered that within the past history of the NRA there have been times when the NRA publicly stated support for various kinds of gun control. I wrote here in August 2010 about a web site that contains a complete reprint of the March 1968 issue of American Rifleman, the official publication of the NRA, that confirmed this. Read my blog post:
Friday, August 13, 2010

The short history of the NRA: When you dance with the Devil you will get burned.

A few days ago while researching the gun control issue and the involvement of the NRA I came across a web site that had reprinted the entire article from the March 1968 issue of the American Rifleman. The source for this reprint is:
Here are some highlights from the American Rifleman, March 1968 issue article to perk your interest:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
The NRA is a great supporter of the Second Amendment and they have sponsored many useful laws such as The Castle Doctrine, but many people suspect that one goal of the NRA is that in the event of the national registration of all firearms, they would like to see themselves designated as the exclusive proprietors of every local gun club where gun owners would be required to store their guns if they were prohibited from being kept their homes. This is, by the way, the policy in Great Britain and I believe it is the fail safe plan of the NRA.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides. I became a Life Member of the NRA in 1968 and elevated to Benefactor level. In 2010 I resigned and am now a Life Member of the Gun Owners of America.


Friday, December 21, 2012

Stealing elections in a civilized society and in a barbaric culture. Either way, evil triumphed once again.

Egypt and the United States just recently had two fairly close elections in which evil triumphed both at home and abroad. In modern times we often feel in our hearts that in the end good will triumph over evil but in today's world that does not always happen. But it is interesting to see a comparison between the civilized process in America that allows for elections to be stolen and the barbaric methods used in Egypt that allowed evil to triumph. Edmund Burke once said that "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing". But evil also wins when they stack the deck.

The evil that won in Egypt was the narrow approval of the new Sharia compliant Islamic constitution heavily promoted by Islamic terrorist-supporting group called The Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is an ancient country with a popular 6000-year old history that involved the Pharaohs, the pyramids, Anthony and Cleopatra and the story of Moses. It is because of Egypt's popularity in Europe and the West that it has flourished with tourism and has evolved well through modern times into a diverse, multicultural nation. Its population consists of two major Muslim sects and a large number of Coptic Christians. Until recently, Egypt was ruled by a hard-line military dictator Hosni Mubarak for almost 30-years but following an Islamic revolution called the Arab Spring, that was supported by America's Muslim-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, Mubarak was ousted and a Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi was elected president. Almost immediately, Morsi proclaimed dictatorial powers for himself and pushed for a new constitution based on Islamic Sharia law. Thousands of Egyptians reacted with violent protests. The latest news indicates that the new Islamic constitution was narrowly approved by the voters but recently has details emerged that tell how that approval was accomplished with widespread voter intimidation.

In America, we recently had our own election in which the Democrat candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, himself a would-be Muslim and notably a confirmed Marxist/Socialist with life-long ties to the communist party, was reelected by a devout following of ignorant, uninformed, greedy mass of voters. This, coming after four years of an unprecedented, disastrous attack on the U.S. economy in which Obama looted our Treasury, borrowed trillions of dollars to squander upon his supporters who, in turn, made heavy contributions to his political campaign. No one ever expected Barack Hussein Obama to win the election because his popularity had been well below 50% for most of his first term. With a four year record of unemployment of greater than 8% and totals exceeding 15-20% that included the hopelessly unemployed, with a housing crisis involving millions of foreclosures and a disastrous foreign policy of appeasement and bowing before foreign leaders, Obama was considered the worst leader of America even more so than Jimmy Carter. Yet, in spite of also declaring virtual dictatorial powers just like Mohamad Morsi in Egypt, Obama was reelected. And in spite of the documented cases of fraud the Republicans were prevented from contesting the election results because of a decade old consent agreement with the Justice Dept.

In America our elections here were stolen through a combination that ranged from slight-of-hand technology, to brute force, to fraud, to intimidation and through misinformation spread by a conspiratorial enterprise of corrupt journalism and a one-sided, biased news media who couldn't tell the difference between propaganda and truth. Hundreds of cases have been reported of voter turnout in counties that was greater than the number of registered voters, illegal immigrant voters, undocumented absentee ballots being counted without the presence of unbiased bipartisan witnesses, rigged voting machines that reversed the selected vote to that of the Democrat candidate Obama and where polling places had intimidating members of the Black Panthers making threats to voters. In America we also had a sizable number of Christians who stayed away from the polls on election day because they had been convinced by a combination of stupid articles published on right-wing Christian web sites to similarly biased articles published on left-wing web sites that the Moron religion of the Republican candidate was against their hard-line Christian beliefs. But most of all it was the unprecedented bias against the Republicans by the totally controlled leftist news media that spewed hatred and lies about Republicans on a daily basis. A degree of bias so blatant that some so-called journalists were seen reading scripts from left-wing web sites during broadcasts. So it is interesting to compare how the election process in America was different from a less civilized country.

I have read several stories from Egypt about some of the outright violence to intimidate the minority Christian voters to stay home and not participate on the constitutional referendum. Had they not been subjected to violence and intimidation the votes of the Christian population would certainly have tipped the results to the other direction. Since a large portion of the voters in Egypt who voted against the new constitution were themselves Muslim it is proof that only the most extreme Muslim factions support Islamic Sharia law. Three interesting stories were reported at Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs that show how just successful the voter intimidation was.
Egypt: 50,000 Muslims led by sword-wielding men march through Christian areas, chanting that country would be "Islamic, Islamic, despite the Christians" 

And making sure the Christians didn't vote in the referendum.

More on this story. "Fear keeps Egypt's Christians away from polls," by Hamza Hendawi for the Associated Press, December 18 (thanks to Betsy):
ASSIUT, Egypt (AP) - A campaign of intimidation by Islamists left most Christians in this southern Egyptian province too afraid to participate in last week's referendum on an Islamist-drafted constitution they deeply oppose, residents say. The disenfranchisement is hiking Christians' worries over their future under empowered Muslim conservatives. Around a week before the vote, some 50,000 Islamists marched through the provincial capital, Assiut, chanting that Egypt will be "Islamic, Islamic, despite the Christians." At their head rode several bearded men on horseback with swords in scabbards on their hips, evoking images of early Muslims conquering Christian Egypt in the 7th Century.
They made sure to go through mainly Christian districts of the city, where residents, fearing attacks, shuttered down their stores and stayed in their homes, witnesses said.
The day of the voting itself on Saturday, Christian voting was minimal - as low as seven percent in some areas, according to church officials. Some of those who did try to head to polling stations in some villages were pelted by stones, forcing them to turn back without casting ballots, Christian activists and residents told The Associated Press this week.
Egypt: Christian voters turned away from referendum vote
Because it was known that they would vote against the Sharia constitution. More on this story. "Egypt Islamists claim majority in referendum," from AP, December 15 (thanks to Kenneth):
CAIRO A narrow majority of Egyptians who voted in the first round of a referendum on a proposed Islamist-backed constitution have approved the document, according to unofficial tallies compiled by the Muslim Brotherhood and released early Sunday. An official tweet by the Brotherhood, Egypt's most powerful political group, said its tallies showed nearly 57 percent of voters said "yes" to the disputed charter, while about 43 percent voted "no." The vote was held on Saturday in 10 of the country's 27 provinces, including Cairo and the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, Egypt's second largest city.
Voting in the remaining provinces will be held Dec. 22....
The violations reported by monitors included polling centers collecting votes without judges to oversee the process, civil employees illegally replacing the judges, ballot papers not officially stamped as per regulations, campaigning inside polling stations and Christian voters being turned away.

Sunday, December 16, 2012 (ATLAS SHRUGS)

Women without Hijabs were prevented from voting in Egypt

Is it any wonder the sharia constitution passed?
More of Obama's progress in Egypt. And American women supported that prig.

The greatest fear among many Americans has been that should Barack Hussein Obama have the opportunity to rule our nation for four more years we would loose every right guaranteed in our own Constitution. A similar fear expressed by a large number of Egyptians for the future of their country. And truth be known, even before his second term has begun, Barack Hussein Obama has made plans to disarm the citizens of America as every other dictator has done throughout history. In the name of public safety, an overused term favored by mindless liberals, Obama has bowed once again to the ACLU-created events perpetrated by mentally ill sociopaths who felt a need to commit mass murder. Following the unconscionably faulty logic of liberal academics who habitually spread fear and paranoia about guns in schools that has resulted in leaving them all totally defenseless to attack by mentally ill psychopaths like Adam Lanza in Connecticut, the liberal news media has been handed a new campaign to help convince the population to a need to disarm our nation. It is no wonder that gun sales in America have soared in the last four years. With the expected fall of our society and pending civil war, those millions of Americans who always clung to their guns and bibles plan on being among the survivors or at least to die trying. And the one argument you won't hear in the left-wing controlled debates over the Second Amendment is the Founding Fathers belief that an armed population was the best threat against government tyranny. And you can bet on it that tyranny is galloping full speed ahead on the Four Horses of the Apocalypse.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.