Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Guns of Obamerica

Via Angry Mike

Forget Wal-Mart and skip your local gun show. The murderers of tomorrow will not be found wearing orange vests at your local sporting goods store. They won't have NRA memberships or trophies on their walls.

You won't find them in America. Look for them in Obamerica.

67% of firearm murders took place in the country's 50 largest metro areas. The 62 cities in those metro areas have a firearm murder rate of 9.7, more than twice the national average. Among teenagers the firearm murder rate is 14.6 or almost three times the national average. Those numbers are from six years ago. They have grown worse since.

Those are the crowded cities of Obamerica. The places with the most restrictive gun control laws and the highest crime rates. These are the places where the family is broken, money comes from the government and immigrants crowd in from some of the most violent parts of the world bringing with them their own organized crime. These are also the places that have run by Democrats and their political machines for almost as long as they have been broken.

Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory. He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average.

These places aren't America. They're Obamerica.


Via Blue

Memories of Pre-1975 Vietnam in 9,000 Pictures


More @ Flickr

The English on the Tyrant Lincoln

I fortunately stumbled across this when I was checking sites visiting FNC.


Lincoln: the racist imperialist war-monger Hollywood loves
Here is my column from Monday's Irish Daily Mail --

Enjoy the film, did you? I mean, if you were one of the hundreds who turned out at the Savoy last night to join Daniel Day-Lewis and Stephen Spielberg at the European premiere of Lincoln, did you enjoy the film?

Because of course any Hollywood version of a Lincoln biography is tosh, so the only question is: did you enjoy the tosh?

It would be only fair if you did. Millions of Americans over the years have enjoyed movies about Ireland, its history and its culture – Darby O’Gill and the Little People being one, The Quiet Man being another, and Ryan’s Daughter. Any of which is as accurate a picture of the real Ireland as any Hollywood film is about the real Abraham Lincoln. So I do hope you enjoyed Lincoln in the same way a generation of Americans enjoyed Darby O’Gill. All the same, really.

Don’t be surprised. No Hollywood movie about Lincoln has ever come near the truth, and as long as Yankees control the industry, no movie ever will.

The present film focuses on the political manoeuvrings by Lincoln in 1865 to have the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, meant to prohibit slavery, passed in what was left of the House of Representatives, a rump that was left after the secession of the Southern States.

In effect, Lincoln was trying to rewrite a constitution under which he intended the South would have to live again, but giving the South no voice in drafting the amendment. The amendment would later be forced through for ratification in post-war legislatures in Southern States under military occupation. The passage of the 13th Amendment made the Irish 1801 Act of Union look like a monument to representative democracy.

How much did Spielberg get right on this? Well, imagine the British Conservative party writing a film script about Irish history and you will understand what happens when Yankees do Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln had a record from the moment of his inauguration of smashing up the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Picturing him now as being careful to get a new amendment just right is a bit precious.

If the film in fact tells this truth about Lincoln -- it has not yet opened here in Brussels, and I won’t watch pirate – that’s great, that’s a first.

But the truth is that Lincoln was a racist, war-mongering, anti-liberty, blood-soaked imperialist liar. Lincoln has been deified to justify the conquest and occupation of the sovereign States of the South by the financially-driven vested interests of the North. The truth is, the war was about tariffs and not about slavery. I have to suspect the film doesn’t say that.

If you were one of the 900 people who did pay out €160 a head last night for last night’s gala, you might be wondering why I didn’t tell you the truth about Lincoln before you dug into your money to see the movie.

Reason: because the film was being screened in aid of the Wicklow Hospice building fund, and I have hesitated to write one word that might discourage anyone from giving money to that cause.

Now, however, the hospice fund has its money from the evening. I’m cleared for take-off.

First I will have to deal with the misunderstandings about slavery as the cause of the war. Here is the American historian Dr Clyde Wilson, writing in Chronicles Magazine in 2011: ‘It is now established with Soviet party-line rigor that the War was “caused by” and “about” slavery, and nothing but slavery. This is not because the interpreters of history in 2011 are more knowledgeable and objective than those of 1961 [the centennial of the war]. Quite the reverse is true. The new orthodoxy does not result from new knowledge. Slavery has been elevated to the centre place of the war because Americans are obsessed with race and devoted to the emotional and financial rewards of victimology. But slavery does not belong there.’

‘The Union never did anything before, during, or after the War with the welfare of black Americans foremost in mind.’

Though of course, Yankees hated slavery. Why? Because in their view slaves were a non-Anglo-Saxon element who had corrupted the South, and left white Southerners – the Cavaliers of America -- both free and prosperous, and therefore independent of Northern Puritanism. For the Yankees of the mid-19th century, writes Dr Wilson, ‘It wasn’t that the black man had too little liberty; it was that the Southern white man had far too much.’

Which takes us to the question of tariffs as the cause of the war. In his book, The Real Lincoln, Prof Thomas DiLorenzo makes the case that the North invaded the South in order to hold onto the tariff revenues which the wealthy, exporting South was forced to pay to subsidise Northern industry.

Higher tariffs for his crony capitalists were the key plank of Lincoln’s 1860 election platform. He had no interest in ending slavery. What he wanted was to exploit the South for tariff revenues, and stop the South buying cheaper manufactured goods abroad.

Increased tariff revenues would also help finance Union expansion into the West, where the Lincoln administration was overseeing the eradication of the Plains Indians in the interest of the President’s cronies in the railway industry. Example: on December 26th, 1862, Lincoln ordered the largest mass execution in American history, 39 Sioux prisoners executed by Union soldiers in one day.

As Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, has written, if the South could be free of the North, ‘Northern manufacturers would be seriously hurt, and maybe bankrupted.’

This is what Yankees meant when they said they wanted to ‘preserve the Union.’ They wanted to preserve the Southern people as captives to Northern business and banking interests. Following the election of Lincoln, the Southern states decided it was time to exercise their undeniable right to secede from the union, just as their grandfathers had seceded from the British Empire.

But let’s get to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which people here persist in imaging freed the slaves. It did not, nor did Lincoln intend it should. Slavery was constitutional and Lincoln knew it.

Yes, slavery still was – why do I even have to say it? -- is now, and can never be anything but an abomination: but there it was, forced onto the American colonies by their British masters, and continued in many American States, North and South, into the 1860s.

There were legal and moral ways to end slavery, but turning loose on the Southern people men such as Ulysses S Grant, a meat-grinder of a killer, was not one of the ways.

In effect, what the Emancipation Proclamation did was announce that slaves in territory not controlled by the federal government would be freed, but in any territory controlled by Union forces, slaves would not be freed.

Mr Spielberg may touch on this. He would have to, because even in 1863, the New York World newspaper mocked the proclamation: ‘He [the President] has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it.’

In fact, many slaves who ended up in the hands of the Yankee soldiers were not freed, but were forced to work at the worst jobs in the army camps: ‘Welcome to Yankee slavery, here, clean the latrine.’

So ending slavery was not the point of the proclamation. Nor was it Lincoln trying to overcome resistance in Washington to freeing slaves. Rather, Lincoln knew that by 1863, almost no white men were left working on Southern farms and plantations. They were all away fighting. Women and children kept the farms working.

At the time, it was assumed Lincoln calculated that once the slaves heard they had been ‘freed,’ they would rise up and slaughter the white women and children.

The slaves of course never rose and slaughtered anyone, despite Lincoln’s efforts. Why they didn’t, I do not know. Perhaps they were more Christian than I, and perhaps you, would have been in the same circumstances.

Lincoln’s imperialist war ended with 620,000 young men dead (including one-quarter of all white men in the South between the ages of 20 and 40), the economy of the South destroyed, and the South an occupied territory without civil rights or legitimate government for nearly a generation.

Even Virginia, home of Washington, Jefferson and Madison, and the oldest representative democracy in the New World, was reduced by the Yankees to an occupied territory called ‘Military District No 1.’

Orwell should have told this story, not Spielberg.

The Death Throes of the United States

Comment by TurtleBurt on  Inauguration of Septimius Severus: We're Screwed 

Thoughts Following the Inauguration of Septimius Severus: We're Screwed


I’ve been thinking about fault lines, and fractures, and diversity, and when it’s all going to implode. I hope I’m still around because it is going to be one gorgeous show. Few things are as entertaining as a truly good disaster.

What is going to kill us is diversity. It isn’t working well. By diversity I mean here the intermixing of large groups of people holding utterly differing and opposed values. There is too damned much diversity in America. It isn’t getting better.

The current donnybrook over guns is not a political question, like whether to raise or lower taxes. It is a clash of civilizations, a confrontation between two groups who seriously don’t like each other and hold irreconcilably different views of life. The two would be happier in separate countries, an idea that has occurred to them. It is that bad.

The Constitution no longer being in effect, the gun-controllers may be able to outlaw guns, chiefly because the federal government also wants to do this, though for different reasons. The gun-controllers think that they are going to stop murder, whereas the feds just want a supine and helpless population. Should they succeed in banning firearms, the result will be a very large element of the population actually hating the rest, and hating the government. Diversity.

Barrett Baby

Via Ryan

Tank Porn

Via dashing



Dear Cop


Left to Right: Private Man, Officer in Captain Taliaferro's Company, Private Man, Officer in Captain Wm. Pickett's Company of the Culpeper Minutemen

The battlespace is starting to firm up. Yes, I hear the law enforcement personnel who say that they might be 10% of their comrades who will stand. I hear Oathkeepers staying true to their sentiments about the Assault Weapons Ban. Maybe 10% of the Oathkeepers will keep their oath. There are two things that need to happen: 1) Good Cops Need To Declare Themselves Now, as a recent post suggested; 2) we need to start forming connections to each other, the gun community and those willing to stand for their oaths and defend them.

I know law enforcement is used to standing alone, relying on brothers in arms for their defense and the defense of the laws. Forget it, that day is over. Today, right now, there are only two different individuals in the nation: those who will support the Constitution and those who will try to destroy it. Pick a side already and start forming up with those in the militia, those in the gun community who will be reliable to you when you have to face the other 90% of your precinct.

More @ TL In Exile

Texas official: 3 wounded in college shooting


A shooting on a Texas community college campus wounded three people Tuesday and sent 
students fleeing for safety as officials placed the campus on lockdown, officials said.

Harris County Sheriff's Maj. Armando Tello said authorities had detained a person of interest.
Authorities also thought there could be a second shooter, according to a law enforcement official in Washington who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the ongoing case.

The school's official Twitter feed said the shooting was between two people and that the situation was under control. It had issued an alert on its website earlier, telling students and faculty to take immediate shelter or avoid the campus.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/22/3195016/texas-campus-issues-alert-amid.html#storylink=cpy

Guns Stop Three Home Invasions, Store Robbery


Five people tried to break into a home in Oklahoma City, OK. The woman homeowner and her friend shot two of them with her gun. The other burglars fled to another house to escape the gunfire. The shooting victims are in serious to critical condition, but the woman and her friend were unharmed.

Without warning, a man tried to kick-in the door of a home in San Antonio, TX.  The mother quickly called 911 while her son shot at the man through the door. The man shot his gun before he fled. The mother and son were unharmed and police are still looking for the suspect.

Two men in San Antonio, TX tried to steal some beer from a store, but were stopped because a customer had his concealed weapon. The suspects left with nothing and the police will not charge the customer.

VA: Anti-gun lawmaker who brandished borrowed AK-47 once ‘lost’ 2 semi-automatic weapons police loaned him


 (RELATED: Anti-gun Va. lawmaker who brandished AK-47 in legislature was disbarred after brutal 1999 assault)

Virginia Delegate Joseph Morrissey, who became infamous online last week when he brandished an AK-47 during his anti-gun speech before the state legislature, once told a judge he “lost or misplaced” two semiautomatic assault-style weapons, including two that he borrowed from a state police forensic lab.

“I don’t think you should be able to possess an assault rifle,” Morrissey told ABC News on Friday.
But the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported in April 1994 that the arrest of a heroin dealer led police to discover an Uzi submachine gun that was supposed to be under Morrissey’s control.

That gun, along with two other semiautomatic weapons — a TEC-9 capable of firing 72 rounds without reloading, and another unspecified rifle — were among four weapons Morrissey used as props when he discussed drugs and violence at schools, and during civic meetings.

The suspected drug dealer “was arrested in Richmond … and the gentleman had a storage locker rented to himself in Chesterfield County,” State Police Special Agent Anita Derby told the Times-Dispatch then. “A search warrant was conducted on the storage locker and that’s where the gun was found.”

The Uzi and the TEC-9 disappeared after police loaned them to Morrissey in May 1991. He said in 1994 that the firearms had been missing since at least December 1992,when Virginia Department of Forensic Science director Paul Ferrara asked for their safe return.

Although Morrissey said he believed the Uzi and the TEC-9 were stolen from his office, sources inside the former prosecutor’s office told the Times-Dispatch in August 1993 that he never reported them missing.

At the time, Morrissey’s office told the newspaper that the third rifle was accounted for.

U.S. gift of F-16 fighters headed to Egypt, despite Morsi's harsh rhetoric


Four F-16 fighter jets left the U.S. this morning, bound for Egypt as part of a foreign aid package critics say should have been scrapped when the nation elected a president who has called President Obama a liar and urged that hatred of Jews be instilled in children.

A source who works on the Naval Air Force Base in Dallas confirmed the departure of the state-of-the-art fighter planes to FoxNews.com. Sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks are to be given to the Egyptian government before the end of the year under a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a longtime U.S. ally..

Critics, including several in Congress, say it doesn't make sense to follow through with the package, given that new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, elected last summer, has given decidedly mixed signals about relations with the U.S. While he has toned down his rhetoric since his election, in 2010 - the same year the aid package was struck - Morsi attacked Obama for supporting Israel.

“One American president after another — and most recently, that Obama — talks about American guarantees for the safety of the Zionists in Palestine," Morsi, then a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said on Egyptian television in reaction to Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo. "[Obama] was very clear when he uttered his empty words on the land of Egypt. He uttered many lies, of which he couldn’t have fulfilled a single word, even if he were sincere — which he is not.”

In the comments translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Morsi went on to urge that children be taught to hate Jews.

More @ Fox

Groupon Has Canceled All Of Its Gun-Related Deals

 With Mike Hudack and Boz at Metcalf Shooting Range.

Groupon has canceled, at least temporarily, all of its scheduled and ongoing gun-related promotions, Matt Brownell at Aol Daily Finance reported.

"All scheduled and current gun-related deals featured on Groupon North America, including shooting ranges, conceal-and-carry and clay shooting, have been placed on hiatus while we review internal standards that shape the deal inventory we feature," a Groupon spokesperson told Daily Finance.
"The category is under review following recent consumer and merchant feedback."

81% Think Congress Should Take Big Pay Cut Until Budget is Balanced

 Looks like the House Republicans came up with a popular plan.

Voters overwhelmingly believe members of Congress should take a pay cut until the federal budget is balanced, and a plurality thinks the president should do the same. 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 81% of Likely U.S. Voters feel members of Congress should take a 25% pay cut until the federal budget is balanced. Only 12% disagree.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

GOA Alert: Will the U.S. Follow Germany's Example?

Gun Appreciation Day Draws Out Gun Enthusiasts
The country that invented Nazism sets up national gun registry
Something very instructive just happened in Germany.
Germany just implemented "a vast registry that details every legal gun owner in the country, along with information about all of their firearms."
They did this, based on records that, in some cases, "were kept on index cards across what used to be 551 separate local registries."  
Thus, with everyone's name already on an index card (read:  4473 forms) in what was effectively a "universal background check," it was a small step to a national gun registry. 
Not surprisingly, "gun rights groups" in Germany raised no real opposition.  "We are used to it," said one.
Now, in the words of The Washington Post:
     If they are preparing a raid on a house, they can scout the address in the database to be better prepared for what weapons might lie within.  Before the database, they could only guess at overall numbers, and finding the weapons registered to a certain address had been laborious.
Do we need any better indication of why "universal background checks" are the most insidious aspect of Barack Obama’s gun control? 
We know that gun confiscation is the ultimate endgame for many of the gun grabbers on the Left.  Consider just a few, recent well-known cases:
* "Confiscation could be an option," declared New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a radio interview (December 27, 2012).
* "We cannot have big guns out here," said Iowa Rep. Dan Muhlbauer. "Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them." (Interview with the Iowa Daily Times Herald, December 19, 2012.)
* "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police, right before several law-enforcement agencies began confiscating the firearms of lawful gun owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (2005).
The task of confiscating guns is much easier when the government has a registration list.  And that is the number one reason gun owners should oppose background checks, because they give federal bureaucrats the framework for a national registration system.
If Obama gets his way, we will be much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need. 
Some liberal gun-grabbers are trying to paint it as "non-controversial."  But this hideous provision requiring every American to get the permission of the government before exercising their Second Amendment rights must be stopped.   
ACTIONClick here to contact your Senators and Representative.  Insist that they oppose the national background check, which would set the framework for a national gun registry and confiscation.

Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'

Via Michael 

 This would explain why he wants to disarm us...

On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.
So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

His bio on Amazon.com reads:

More @ Examiner