**************************************2014 Spring NC PATCON Pictures*****************************
**************************************2013 Fall NC PATCON Pictures********************************
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Angelina Jolie with Senator Richard Lugar.
Evidently brought up rite' by father Jon Voight.
|Jon Voight Reads His Letter To The American People|
"I’ve given the GOP establishment plenty of grief over the years. But the epitome of this establishment, Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana, has actually given the proper response in the wake of nation’s latest war which did on Face the Nation this morning:
“Lugar warned that the U.S. is investing huge sums of money in a foreign endeavor at a time when the domestic economy is still struggling.”It’s a strange time,” he said. “Almost all of our congressional days are spent on budget deficits, outrageous problems. Yet, at the same time, all of this passes, which is a very expensive operation.”
No only this but Lugar has also called for Congressional discussion, debate and ultimately a vote on the policy itself, so that our country cannot just go to war when the UN and the Arab League says it’s okay to do so. It seems Lugar and others in the establishment are rediscovering their roots in the Republican Party traditional foreign policy, the kind he grew up and began his public career with."
"Make no mistake, I really like .44 caliber handguns, and in particular, .44 Magnum handguns. I still remember getting my first .44 Magnum handgun, back in 1974. Like many guys, I loved the Dirty Harry movie series, with Clint Eastwood. So my first .44 Magnum was a S&W Model 29, with a 6.5" Barrel. I can still recall the first cylinder of ammo I fired on the gun shops indoor range - my hand stung! Before reloading another 6 rounds, I noticed that the grips on the Model 29 had cracked - on both sides - from the recoil. Luckily, the gun shop stocked grips and I was back in business. I actually carried that S&W Model 29, in a shoulder holster, like Dirty harry Callahan did, when I was working as a Private Investigator, back in Chicago, Illinois.
Over the years, I've owned more than my share of S&W .44 Magnums in one guise or another. However, one that really caught my attention is the Model 329 Night Guard."
-- Friedrich Hayek
Bloomberg has been sued for defamation by a Smyrna, Georgia gun dealer represented by former congressman Bob Barr.
A substantial number of member of the coalition have been indicted in recent months, on felony charges. Here in the US, conviction of felony means the immediate loss of both the right to vote and the right to own a gun for the rest of one's life. This is an organization that espouses doing away with "illegal guns", yet a surprising number of their members have made choices in their lives that have set themselves on the path to being disenfranchised from ever owning a gun.
Personal character and integrity are prerequisites for anyone entering public office, to serve in an elected position of "special trust and confidence", such as a mayorship. Abuses of that trust, gross lapses of integrity, and forays into criminal conduct are not tolerated in our society. If anything, elected politicians are held to a higher standard than the general public, and their actions are closely watched. For an elected official to become a criminal, when they themselves are entrusted to protect us from criminals is nearly the most heinous and unforgivable thing imaginable in a democratically-ruled republic. For some of these same individuals to continue to be considered members in good standing of a "crime-fighting" organization--and not even censured by the organization--has been criticized as being hypocritical.
Three current and former members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition are currently under felony indictments, six others were recently convicted of felonies, one indicted member died of a heart attack before completion of his trial, and one member was recently convicted of a violent misdemeanor. The indicted and convicted members and former members include:
12 Questions And Answers
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
In recent weeks, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon has said in public he doesn't trust Pascual (seen at left). Several sources close to diplomatic circles inside Mexico tell CBS News that from Mexico's viewpoint, the ATF "gunwalking" scandal was the final straw in a series of controversies.
First, Pascual has been dating the daughter of a mistrusted and alleged cartel-linked opposition legislator.
Second, Pascual's critical views of Mexico in secret U.S. diplomatic cables were leaked on WikiLeaks several weeks ago. In one cable, Pascual said Mexico had turned a blind eye to U.S. leads on how to capture drug lords.
More recently, Mexico has demanded information from the U.S. on the ATF controversy revealed by CBS News, in which ATF agents allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to cross the border, supposedly in a failed attempt to gain intelligence to take down a major drug cartel. Some Mexican legislators have publicly said ATF agents who crafted and carried out the strategy could be extradited to Mexico and arrested. The legislators quote ATF agent John Dodson, as interviewed in our report.
Published reports, including one in the Miami Herald, quote the White House as recently having said U.S. officials thought the tiffs would blow over.
After years of being harassed by the purple people beaters, one company has finally said ENOUGH.
In a press release issued Thursday, Sodexo USA announced that the company has filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act., accusing the union of engaging in an “illegal campaign of extortion.” The lawsuit representing Sodexo is Hunton & Williams – the same firm SEIU and its allies have accused of launching a “dirty tricks” campaign against them in retaliation for their anti-Chamber of Commerce campaigns.
Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit in an attempt to halt the over-the-top harassment from SEIU, alleging that many of the acts are very serious and outside of the normal realm of union tactics, including acts of ” SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.”
Government entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance now equal 35 percent of all wages — up from 26 percent as recently as 2002 — pushing the United States toward “European territory.”
The recent increase in government assistance is due largely to the recession’s high unemployment, according to Madeline Schnapp, director of macroeconomic research at the investment research firm TrimTabs.
But she believes that even when unemployment declines, the 35 percent mark is not likely to drop very much.
“What would it take to bring the ratio of social welfare benefits to wages and salaries back to its pre-recession level of 26 percent?” she writes.
“Either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion.
“Neither of these scenarios seems likely. The economy is not growing rapidly enough to generate extraordinary growth in wages and salaries, and the oldest of the 78 million Baby Boomers turn 65 this year and are eligible for Medicare.”
Commenting on Schnapp’s research, Daniel Indiviglio, associate editor of The Atlantic, notes that as baby boomers age they increasingly rely on government payments through programs like Social Security and Medicare. So even when the millions of jobless Americans do find work, the government unemployment insurance they no longer receive might go to increased benefits to seniors.
He writes: “At 35 percent, the U.S. is entering European territory. Schnapp says that transfer payments in the U.K. are currently around 44 percent of wages and salaries — but that's up from 36 percent in 2007, before the global recession hit.
“So if this ratio remains around 35 percent in the U.S. even after the unemployment rate declines, then the U.S. government's transfer payment burden will, indeed, begin to resemble that of a European welfare state.”
Why should any free nation want to intervene in Libya? Muslims don’t want freedom. They care nothing for democracy or anything Western (but money). It is not a righteous act for European nations, much less for America, to intervene for the sake of any supposed cause of Libyan people.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that Moamar Gaddafi’s Libyan government has lost all credibility when it attacked its own people. Of the military strikes against Gaddafi’s government, Sarkozy said,
We are doing it to protect the civilian population from the murderous madness of a regime that in killing its own people has lost all legitimacy.
I don’t recall France making such a declaration when the Yankees attacked the “rebels” of the American South during America’s Civil War. France remained officially neutral during the entire war. In fact, most French diplomats openly favored the North. Furthermore, when the secessionist of Charleston, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter in the Charleston Harbor, no other nation recognized the states rights advocates. No other nation ever recognized the South as an independent nation, nor sought to help them become independent.