Fort Hood Shooter Has Drawn $278G In Salary Since Massacre. No Time For Duct Tape. Head Explosion Imminent.

Maj. Nidal Hasan

Remember this piece of human excrement. well it seems since he’s not been convicted, and all sorts of military rules he’s been collecting a nice salary. that’s not the worst part. you see since it was classified 

(Umm graphic head explosion coming, ran out of duct tape)

“workplace violence” our brave troops who were killed and wounded have been getting such minimal BENEFITS because it is not classified “Combat Related”  well that might be changing according to email i received this am. so this will be a twofer.    ~ Steve~

——————————————————————————————

http://www.foxnews.com

Published May 21, 2013

The Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others during a shooting at Fort Hood has reportedly been paid more than $278,000 since the 2009 incident.

U.S. Department of Defense officials confirmed to NBCDFW.com that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty in the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting in Texas, citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Jury selection in his trial is scheduled to begin May 30.

If Hasan, 42, had been a civilian Defense Department employee, Army officials could have suspended his pay after just seven days,NBCDFW.com reports.

A military judge refused to delay Hasan’s trial earlier this month after his attorneys sought to postpone the court-martial to Sept. 1. Hasan’s attorneys claimed military jurors may be influenced by national media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings that compared the two Muslim suspects — Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev – to Hasan.

Prosecutors countered that the delay was unnecessary because Hasan was mentioned only briefly in some news reports about the April 15 attacks in Boston.
Hasan faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize Hasan’s attack as terrorism, instead terming it “workplace violence.” The victims have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the “workplace violence” designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as “combat related.”

 ————————————————-

Part 2

Did You Notice the Policy

 Change on Ft. Hood

Shooter In Obama’s Terror Speech?

Billy Hallowell @ The Blaze

During President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism speech on Thursday he did something that hasn’t yet been done by the administration — at least not so overtly. He referred to the Fort Hood shooting as an act that was “inspired by larger notions of violent jihad.” That is big step toward dubbing the attack an act of terror instead of “workplace violence” as it has been categorized.

“Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents — can do enormous damage. Particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad.” Obama said during the speech. “That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.”

By linking the Boston bombing, which has officially been called terrorism, with Fort Hood, Obama essentially admitted that the former is a comparable act that could (or should) be given the same designation. This is notable for a number of reasons.

For quite some time, the government has taken criticism from liberals and conservatives, alike, for officially calling the 2009 shooting (the only prime suspect is former U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan) “workplace violence” instead of terrorism. Contention over this designation continues to run rampant.

Earlier this month, ABC News reported that at least one Democrat is joining the chorus of those who are discontented with the Obama administration’s failure to use the terrorism label:

A long-serving Pennsylvania Democrat has joined Republican colleagues to ask Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to overturn the “indefensible” decision by the military to designate the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.

“This designation has since resulted in an embarrassing lack of care and treatment by our military for the victims and their families,” said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.), Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virg.) in a later dated May 6 and obtained by ABC News.

In the letter, the trio of lawmakers blame “considerations of ‘political correctness’” not only for the “workplace violence” designation, but for allowing the attack to unfold in the first place.

Fattah’s entrance into the controversy comes after Republicans in Congress have generally taken the lead in pressing the White House for answers about the victims’ treatment, as chronicled in an ABC News investigation.

Watch Obama’s comments about Fort Hood, http://youtu.be/AjmFjETKLKA

Following the speech, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) noted the importance of Obama’s words, claiming that they may help push through efforts for a reclassification of the shooting.

“When he put Ft. Hood in the same breath as Boston… he was basically making our case for us,” Rooney said in an interview with Fox News.

There may be hope yet for our wounded WARRIORS and their families .

H/T     http://americac2c.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Liberal Tyranny: Praying for homosexuals is “hate”

Remember my post of May 22, on an internal document of President Lucifer’s Department of Justice (DOJ) titled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers”?

The document puts managers on notice that if they react with silence to an employee coming out as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual), their “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” In other words, the only acceptable behavior toward LGBTs is no longer just tolerance or acceptance, nothing less than our vocal OUTSPOKEN APPROVAL will do.

Here’s more evidence of the new liberal tyranny.

Please watch this short video:

Homosexuals are calling Amber Dee Parker’s God Made Dad & Mom, the children’s picture book described in the video, as “teaching kids to hate LGBT families” and an attack on “LGBT equality.”

In an article for the gay publication Advocate, titled “New Antigay Children’s Book Teaches Kids to Hate LGBT Families,” Jase Pepples writes:

A new picture book by Amber Dee Parker and Hannah Sequra attempts to battle messages of LGBT equality with a warm and fuzzy brand of hatred, reports Good as You.

Endorsed by the American Family Association, God Made Dad & Mom tells the story of a young boy named Michael who prays for his classmate Jimmy and his two dads to learn “the truth” about how God made them after a trip to the zoo where he’s told all animal families “consist of a male, a female, and their offspring.”

Yup. To the enraged Left, praying for our neighbors is now a form of hate.

But selling Baby Jesus butt-plugs and religious dildos isn’t hate.

A scene from a San Francisco street fair

An attribute of pathological narcissists is that they “require excessive admiration” (American Psychological Association’s DSM IV). That is why narcissists overreact with rage to any perceived criticism. Nothing less than 100% approval will do.

In his seminal essay, “On Narcissism,” Sigmund Freud observed that all human beings, when they are children, go through a period of “primary narcissism”: The child is the most important object and the center of his/her universe. Most of us grow out of that early narcissism to a healthy adulthood. In some cases, however, their psychological development is disrupted and stunted, and so they remain stuck in primary narcissism — now a pathological form of excessive self-regard and self-absorption. Freud understood homosexuality as being an example of pathological narcissism in adulthood.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi had warned that “The attacks on freedom of thought start with language. Those who do not resign themselves to accept ‘homophilia’ … are charged with ‘homophobia’.” Freudianism is no longer the flavor-of-the-month in psychology. But the DOJ’s Orwellian document and the LGBT reaction to a little children’s picture book would suggest that Freud was right.

H/t FOTM’s Sunny.

~Eowyn

Do You NetFlix? Do You Cheat? What’s That you Say? Watch.

~Steve~                      H/T  Miss Sage

The difference between a liberal and conservative activist

Lizz Winstead is a liberal comedian. She thinks she’s funny, or something.

Shameful.

DCG

Oh This Should Be Good. Lois Lerner (I.R.S) To Plead The 5th Today

hey maybe she won’t and just bring the whole ship of rats down with her. A guy can dream can’t he? ~ Steve~

————————————————————————————————–

 

Lois Lerner

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

By DAVID MARTOSKO

PUBLISHED: 16:14 EST, 21 May 2013 | UPDATED: 04:37 EST, 22 May 2013

Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program

• Lois Lerner faces House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs
• Due to be quizzed about extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organisations that applied for tax-exempt status
• But her lawyer says she will refuse to answer anything that may incriminate her

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service‘s tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.

The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.

Lerner’s defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.

She also will decline to say why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress, according to the LA Times.

Lerner ‘has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,’ Taylor’s letter read, ‘but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.’

He is asking the oversight committee to excuse Lerner from testifying, claiming that calling her in a congressional hearing would ‘have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her’ since members would not expect her to answer questions.

Ahmad Ali, a committee spokesman, told MailOnline that ‘Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing – the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight.’

‘Chairman [Darrel] Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.’

The IRS applied special criteria to conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status, putting them on a ‘Be On The Lookout’ (BOLO) list, based on the groups’ names and political philosophies.

President Barack Obama has said he was unaware of the program until May 10, when excerpts of an IRS Inspector General Report on the practice were leaked to reporters.

But Jay Carney, the president’s chief spokesman, confirmed Monday that senior White House staff, including White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, knew about the IRS’s habits as early as April 24, and chose not to tell Obama.

The Inspector General report found that Lerner and other IRS were notified in or before June 2011 that some staff in the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office were using ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots’ and other key words to add applicants to the BOLO list.

Once on that list, the groups were subjected to additional auditing of their financial practices, their membership and their political activities.

Despite knowing about the program, Lerner and other senior IRS staffers withheld the information from Congress despite receiving several requests from House committees whose members heard from constituents that their tea party groups’ tax-exempt approvals were taking as long as two years to be resolved.

The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee was among those that specifically asked the IRS whether it was inspecting tea party groups more closely than other applicants, including those on the political left.

Lerner herself launched her agency’s scandal with a planted question-and-answer exchange during a May 10 American Bar Association conference.

Asked the pre-arranged question, Lerner responded by conceding that her employees had acted inappropriately.

‘Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list,’ she told the assembled tax lawyers.

‘They used names like “tea party” or “Patriots,” and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title.That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.’

She later claimed that the increase in scrutiny of tea party groups was due to an influx of new applications from right-wing organizations, following the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ ruling, which opened the floodgates to greater political participation by nonprofit advocacy groups.

The Washington Post called that claim bogus, however, with the newspaper’s fact checker awarding it a ‘four Pinocchios’ rating for dishonesty.

Lerner’s boss, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, was relieved of his post by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew last week, although the term of his appointment to the job was already scheduled to end in early June.

Other higher-ups inside the IRS have not been publicly held accountable for the improper targeting of conservative organizations.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328696/Lois-Lerner-Top-IRS-official-invoke-Fifth-Amendment-congressional-hearing-tea-party-targeting-program.html#ixzz2U0v3U4JW

 

 

 

 

 

Fla. Gov. Scott vetoes sheriff’s $1 million ‘snitch on your neighbor’ program

 DOESN’T this program kinda remind you of how the gestapo might have been started?

————————————————————————————–

Gov.Scott

http://www.bizpacreview.com       May 20, 2013 by Joe Saunders

Gov. Rick Scott on Monday vetoed almost $368 million in state spending before signing the budget for next year, including $1 million for a violence prevention and mental health initiative sought by the Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw.

Bradshaw’s program would have established a hotline for residents to call when they suspected an individual might be planning a violent act.

If a call were deemed cause for concern, that person might be visited by deputies trained to deal with mental health issues.

In interviews, he cited such incidents as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Auroroa, Colo., as instances where a watchful eye and trained help might have prevented tragedy.

But the proposal drew fire from conservatives when a widespread quote from a Palm Beach Post  story fueled fears of government taking action against people because of how they think, not how they’ve acted.

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said in the article.

“What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’”

Scott also turned down a 3 percent tuition increase for state college and university students.

Rest HERE!!!!

US military gives itself authority to police America without permission

This is deeply disturbing.

About three months ago, quietly and without anyone noticing, the Obama regime’s Department of Defense (DoD) gave itself the authority to use U.S. military troops to police America without permission from the President of the United States (POTUS) or state or local government.

US Army tanks “training” in the streets of St. Louis, June 2012.

The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs, a prohibition codified in two laws:

• The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of POTUS to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 – 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection.

• The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), a U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed after the end of Reconstruction on June 18, 1878, and updated in 1981 to refer specifically to the U.S. Armed Forces, makes unauthorized deployment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act. The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard (because the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Dept. of Homeland Security instead of the Pentagon), nor does the PCA apply to the National Guard (because the National Guard is under state authority and can act in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor).

The only exception to the deployment of U.S. military troops within the United States is provided under Section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which says: “and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” In other words, Article IV requires the U.S. government to protect each state from invasion and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence.

Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action.

About three months ago, however, as reported by Jed Morey for the Long Island Press, the Department of Defense (DoD) unilaterally made a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” and in so doing, granted itself the authority to police America’s streets without obtaining prior presidential, state, or local consent, thereby upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

Pursuant to those changes, the DoD issued a 42-page Department of Defense Instruction (DODI), No. 3025.21, February 27, 2013. (Click here or here for the PDF version of DODI.)

DODI no. 3025.21′s subject is “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.” Its purpose, “In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5111.1 and Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (References (a) and (b)), is to establish “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any other political subdivision thereof in accordance with DoDD 3025.18 (Reference (c)).

The most disturbing part of the DODI no. 3025.21 begins on page 15: “Enclosure 3: Participation of DoD Personnel in Civilian Law Enforcement Activities.”

On page 16, under Section 1b’s “Permissible Direct Assistance” is a subsection (3), which states:

When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c), Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:

(a) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,

(b) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect Federal property or functions.

Jed Morey of the Long Island Press cites Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the DODI rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” which is “quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

Afran points out that Section 1b(3) of the DODI not only fails to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it also grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders” who have the same power to authorize military force as the president when the latter’s authorization is “impossible” — whatever that means.

As Afran puts it, “These phrases don’t have any legal meaning. It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.” “Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

Afran reminds us that, unlike the military, “the police operate under civilian control. They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.

Jed Morey concludes: “for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention. [...] As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.”

H/t Washington’s Blog

See also:

• “US Army targets Tea Party movement as extremists in 2016 civil war scenario,” Aug. 16, 2012.
• “Armored military vehicles to patrol in Wisconsin,” Aug. 14, 2012.
• “What about those U.S. Army tanks in the streets of St. Louis?,” June 25, 2012.
• “Army tanks on streets of St. Louis,” June 24, 2012.
• “Armed U.S. troops in residential streets of Crookston, MN,” May 1, 2012.
• “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill,” Dec. 14, 2011.

~Eowyn

Another mob of Black teens “working twice as hard” terrorizing Chicago

Alexandria Fisher reports for NBC5 Chicago that on Saturday night, May 18, 2013, Chicago once again was subjected to an unruly “flash mob”.

A group of 40 to 60 teens was seen disrupting and running through traffic along North Michigan Avenue in Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood. Police arrested 12 people, including 11 juveniles, for obstructing traffic and being reckless.

The disturbance came on the same day that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law new legislation that would implement harsher penalties for violent flash mobs who organize via social media.

Recent attacks along Chicago’s “Magnificent Mile” prompted concerns from many area residents. Last month, more than two dozen teens were arrested after groups began randomly attacking each other and pedestrians. “We see it virtually every year when the weather gets warm,” Supt. Garry McCarthy said after last month’s attacks.

The “flash mob” on April 1, 2013, involved as many as 300 to 400 swarming teens.

Reporters refuse to say it, but hundreds of “teens” swarming on city streets, “attaching each other and pedestrians” is a form of TERRORISM.

Reporters today simply refuse to actually report the facts. Facts like who these flash mobs are, and who are the “unruly teens” whom police arrested.

So let’s play a “Guess Who” game!

Here are some pictures from last Saturday night’s mob scene in Chicago’s “Magnificent Mile”:

Chicago police officers monitor a group of teens near the intersection of Chicago and Michigan Ave., May 18, 2013. (Nuccio DiNuzzo / Chicago Tribune)

Below are 4 screenshots I took from NBC5 Chicago’s news video (which you can watch for yourself by going here):

And here are screenshots I took from the NBCChicago news video of the “flash mob” of 300-400 teens on April 1, 2013 (you can watch the video for yourself, here):

So,how did you do in our “Guess Who” game?

On May 19, 2013, a day after the “flash mob” of “unruly teens” ran amuck in Chicago’s “Magnificent Mile,” President Lucifer the POS played the race card when he gave the Commencement address at the black college Morehouse College.

The man who became President of the United States despite being a B-average student, actually said: “As an African American you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by.”

Hey, you POS in the White House. By “working twice as hard as anyone else,” are you referring to those “African American” teens in those “flash mobs” in your home Chi-town?

~Eowyn

Just The Facts Ma’am, Just The Facts.

Subject: Why Carry a Gun?

Why Carry a Gun? 

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps, and
usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’…..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

See Update on Switzerland!!

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

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 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

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

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun -control message to all of your friends. 

The purpose of fighting is to win. 
There is no possible victory in defense. 
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. 
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental. 

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! 
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. 

This was brought to my attention

One other point is particularly important here. The description of gun distribution in Switzerland omits important information.

The Swiss government doesn’t hand out a gun to every household. It requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense.

Those men are supposed to show up for 18 weeks of training, followed by seven re-training sessions (each lasting three weeks) over the next 10 years.

If you want to keep your weapon after your years of service, it is refitted to scale back its firepower and you need to provide a reason for keeping it.

IT’S A NO BRAINER! 
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. 

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! 
If you are too, please forward.
    

~ Steve ~                   H/T  FOTM’s OWN  Ken L.

Obama Aide: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

Warning!! Duct Tape Area!

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com

9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it’s an “irrelevant fact” where the president physically was during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012:

Please Pay attention at 1:13 mark

“every hearing has found it’s been a tragedy”

Oh Really now!

Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night. “He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.

Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argues that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack are “offensive.”

And now a word from our resident lunatic. “offensive…Offensive” No you little twit, this is offensive.

look at it..look at it you perverted PIECE of excrement. while your boss was getting his nails done and god knows what else at the down low club. this man and 3 others died. that is offensive to me and about 80% of the nation. More important. it’s OFFENSIVE to god.