Category Archives: Kira Davis

Obama’s DHS: Drones, Hollow Points, and Secrecy

stormfront2.org

What has our Department of Homeland Security metamorphosed into? Our third largest government agency has been stockpiling weapons and ammunition at a very alarming rate. Since early 2012, DHS and its 200,000 employees have purchased so much ammunition that many of the top weapon and bullet manufacturers have had trouble keeping up with the increased demand.

So why is our government buying hundreds of thousands of tactical weapons and millions upon millions of bullets? Do they think that the Russians are going to invade us? Do they think the North Koreans are going to show up in Washington State and take over like in the remake of Red Dawn? Do they think hygienically challenged Iranians are going to power chute into the country holding dull bladed swords and wearing dirty night shirts yelling, “Allah Akbar”?

Hardly.

Our government would never loose a wink of sleep thinking about any one of those scenarios unfolding. Our government’s enemies are not foreign, they are domestic. They are the 60 million Americans who rejected this sorry excuse for a President and are completely against his entire agenda to remake America.

When assessing the Department of Homeland Security’s actions, there is no other logical explanation or reason other than to say they are preparing for civil unrest at the very least and all out civil war at the very best.

What is so alarming and has many Americans on edge is the type of weaponry and ammunition they have purchased; in particular 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.

Hollow point bullets for those who are not familiar with them are very different than regular bullets, or what are called full metal jackets. Hollow point bullets are designed to fray or fragment upon impact. Regular bullets when they hit their target make a smaller hole but for the most part stay in one piece. Hollow points do the exact opposite. When they hit their target they create substantially more damage by fragmenting on impact.

When questioned by members of Congress as to their motivations for such ammunition purchases a DHS spokesperson said they were purchased for “training exercises” at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

According to retired Marine Richard Mason’s interview with WHPTV in Pennsylvania, hollow point bullets are rarely used for training purposes. In fact, in the interview Mr. Mason said, “Never in my entire military career did I know of any Marines training with hollow point bullets.”

When pressed further on why DHS has purchased and continues to purchase massive quantities of weapons and ammunition there answer was also one to be desired. The best they could come up with is buying so many in bulk allows for them to get better pricing.

Once again, this is a suspicious and ridiculous answer. First of all, hollow point bullets are almost twice as expensive as regular bullets. So why would DHS buy the most expensive, most dangerous bullets possible to save money? Furthermore, if hollow point bullets are typically not used for training purposes than why did DHS feel compelled to purchase 450 million rounds of hollow points rather than full metal jackets?

It doesn’t stop there.

They have also purchased 2,700 armored tanks that are designed to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, and improvised explosive devices. These tanks were not ordered to be used on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan. These tanks were ordered to be used on our city streets and in quiet towns all across America. In fact, many Americans have already spotted them in their neighborhoods.

So why does DHS need 2,700 ballistic arm and mine resistant military tanks patrolling our neighborhoods and towns? What do they plan on using them for? Who do they plan on using them on? These are the questions that every single American should be demanding their elected representatives in Congress ask the Department of Homeland Security.

Here is a partial list of their purchases since 2012:

450 million rounds of 40 caliber hollow point bullets, 175 million rifle ammunition rounds .233 caliber (the same ones used by NATO forces), 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, (you know, the same ones Dianne Feinstein and the Obama Administration are trying to ban), and so far over 2 billion with a capital B in total rounds of ammunition.

So now that we have the facts let’s discuss the possible reasons for all this provocative behavior by our government. You don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to know that Barack Obama is a big government liberal. In fact, he is so far to the left he makes Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan. Never in our nation’s history have we seen a more radical President.

The first thing any good leftist leader does when they come to power is try to get their military to go along with their agenda. If they find any major resistance to what type of change they are trying to implement they will usually resort to minimizing their strength or neutralizing it by creating a more loyal parallel force. Barack Obama’s goal has always been to create a loyal civilian army to help implement his type of transformational change.

In July of 2008 Barack Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.”

We already have a civilian force Mr. President; it’s called the National Guard.

Zombie-like salivating yes we can sheeple will have you believe that the President wants to create a civilian army to help fight terrorism. The non kool-aid drinking folks on the right and many in the middle understand this is not the President’s true intent.

First off, the American military is the most powerful, most tactical, and well trained fighting force in the world. Our military is more than capable of fighting terrorism and doesn’t need a bunch of Communist radicals with Billy clubs and switchblades running around the country pretending to be patriotic freedom fighters. The only thing this coalition of Obama supporters would be terrorizing are the people that didn’t follow the President’s orders, mainly Conservatives.

Many fear that this may have been this administration’s goal all along. History has shown that during periods of major civil unrest and forcible revolutionary change many governments prepare themselves by insulating and arming their leaders while simultaneously depleting the resources of their adversaries.

So how do you make your resisters less resistant?

By purposely buying up as much ammunition as you can. Then you make sure law abiding citizens do not have access to ammunition they will need to defend themselves. Additionally, you make sure that local police departments sworn to protect and to serve their citizens suddenly do not have the tools needed to do so. Last but not least you strategically exploit a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to pass draconian legislation that restricts the Second Amendment under the guise of public safety.

If millions of ammunition purchases and thousands of tactical weapons don’t keep you up at night maybe unmanned aircraft capable of eliminating United State citizens will.

Drones have been typically used in the war on terror to eliminate potential terrorist threats in other countries. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have used these unmanned aircraft to kill many high profile targets such as former Al-Qaida leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in Iraq; and American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. This type of aircraft is highly effective at eliminating specific targets while creating very little in collateral damage.

Our government would never use these types of weapons on American soil to eliminate American citizens would they?

On March 5, 2013 Attorney General Eric Holder actually said this, “Drone strikes against American citizens on US soil are legal.” He actually uttered these exact words from his lips. This should make every single American very nervous, especially the ones who vehemently disagree with this administration.

After Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster, Eric Holder sent him a letter backtracking from his statement. The fact that he said it at all is what is so scary. This administration could and would still use drones against Americans citizens regardless of what the attorney general says.

After more questioning and pressure from some members of Congress to clarify his prior statement Eric Holder than went on to say, “Using lethal force against American citizens on US soil is highly unlikely. We hope no president will ever be faced with that decision. However if there was an imminent threat such as a domestic terror attack on the country similar to a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 it is conceivable that the use of an unmanned aircraft could be used as a viable option.” That sounds like a whole lot of wiggle room to me.

Suppose the President is walking from his motorcade one day to the White House. He is surrounded by his security detail and the Secret Service. There is a sniper within range ready, willing, and able to take him out. The sniper is spotted and a drone is dispatched to eliminate the threat. How is this legal? How does this even constitute as an imminent threat to the nation?

The answer is it’s not legal and it doesn’t qualify as a threat to the nation. It qualifies as a threat to the President. Luckily for him he has the Secret Service and his personal security detail to protect him.

Whether or not we as Americans wake up one day and find out that the President is no longer with us doesn’t constitute as a national emergency or an imminent threat. Did the world stop when John F. Kennedy was assassinated? Did time stand still when Ronald Reagan was shot? None of these events stopped the country’s everyday routines and if these events should transpire once again in the future nothing will change how we live our daily lives.

Our Constitution was set up this way. We have a line of succession when it comes to events such as assassinations. The American people will go on with their lives and the Vice President will take over.

So let’s recap.

Our Attorney General says it is legal to kill American citizens on American soil. Barack Obama has cut the military and wants to reduce our nuclear weapons capability even though many rogue nations want to destroy us. Barack Obama wants to create a 1 million member strong civilian security force to “help defeat terrorism”. DHS has refused to answer questions under oath in judiciary hearings as to the intent of their purchases, only giving lame excuses such as training and bulk pricing discounts. And finally the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration are trying to strip law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves by undermining the Second Amendment. Even Stevie Wonder can see what is happening.

So what do we do?

If our government is going to make provocative purchases over and over without reason or explanation I suggest we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I would implore all Americans if they haven’t done so already to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I think it is time for all Americans to purchase as many firearms as they can get their hands on. Handguns, rifles, assault rifles, M-16’s, hunting rifles, shotguns, carbon rifles, AK 47’s, Mac 10’s, etc.

If most Americans decided to “arm up” than maybe our government will see that as a deterrent. We need to neutralize the potential threat from this administration by showing them we are not going to go quietly into that good night. We need to make sure that our government knows that if they decided to travel down this road that we the people will guarantee it will be a very bumpy ride.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dismantling Washington
Dreams from my surrogate father
URGENT: How to beat Barack Obama’s executive orders on gun control
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters

Dismantling Washington

anh-usa.org
Washington, D.C. (which the DC part now stands for dirty cesspool) should become a thing of the past. Society has outgrown the need for a centralized government full of power hungry aristocrats, greedy lobbyists, and corrupt white collar criminals.

When I say criminals I am not just talking in the abstract; I am referring to real criminals.

According to a study from the online publication Capitol Hill Blue, the American people have elected a bunch of politicians that are better at breaking laws than making laws. America’s low information voters have chosen some real class acts to represent them.

Just how bad are some of our members of Congress?

29 members have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for physical assault, 71 have such bad credit that they can’t even qualify for a credit card, (yet with their special clearance as a member of Congress they get an Amex card without having a credit check.) 14 have been arrested on drug related charges, 8 have been arresting for shoplifting, and at least 84 members of Congress have been stopped for drunk driving but subsequently let go once they showed they were members of Congress.

If all that hasn’t made you lose your lunch this sure will.

According to the 2013 Congressional schedule, Congress will take 239 days off! That means they will only “work” 126 days of the year. If that wasn’t bad enough these hardly working, drunk driving, womanizing, bad credit, criminals get paid a minimum of $175,000 a year. Not bad for 126 days of so called work. They have worked themselves so hard that they don’t even have the strength to create a budget. The last time our dedicated public servants passed a budget was April 29, 2009. That is an unbelievable mind boggling 1,415 days without a budget, and counting.

This article’s intent is not to highlight the ineptness and unprincipled actions of our corrupt Congress; instead its purpose is to illustrate just how incidental and unnecessary Washington, DC has become. Former Republican Presidential nominee Rick Perry may not have been able to talk his way out of a paper bag; however he had the political will and courage to tell the American people that if he were to be elected President he would make Congress a part time job.

I couldn’t agree with him more. In fact, I’d like to take his suggestion a little further and dismantle Washington, DC altogether; and here is how we can do it.

We live in a virtual and digital society in which nothing seems impossible. The constant advancements in technology have created a very mobile society. We live in a world where you can start your car, turn the lights on and off in your house, and check your blood pressure, all by using your I-phone. There is no reason why Congress can’t conduct official government business from their respective state Capitols. Think about how much money they could save in travel expenses and housing alone?

With email, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, video conferencing, and websites such as gotomeeting.com; there is no shortage of technology that could be utilized to perform the everyday functions of Congress from outside of Washington, DC.

According to census.gov, 1 out of 10 workers over the age of 65 works from home. This is a growing trend that is only going to continue as more businesses look for ways to cut operating expenses and increase productivity. With so many older workers still in the workforce due to the Obama economy; many of these workers work from home.

Companies that employ workers who telecommute save on expenses such as office space, equipment, furniture, and supplies. Employees who work from home are able to save money on such expenditures as clothing, childcare, parking, and gasoline. Also, some studies have shown that workers who telecommute are more effective and efficient at their jobs than those who work in the office. Why not extend that same invitation to members of Congress?

According to statistics from the 112th Congress, the average age of a member of the House of Representatives is 57 years and the average age of a member of the Senate is 63 years. These folks should be required to work remotely from their respective states and only come into Washington a few times a month to cast votes.

Washington, DC is 68.3 square miles of influence, corruption, and centralized power. The only way to change Washington is to remove the influence, corruption, and power from it; and that starts with Congress. The only way to do this is by forcing members of Congress to not congregate permanently in Washington, DC.

A suggestion would be to pass a law in which no member of Congress is allowed to have permanent residence within 100 miles of Washington, DC. By doing this you automatically decentralize the influence and power, and make it harder for lobbyists and power brokers to influence fiscal policy. This is how you change Washington, DC.

To some who are reading this I understand it may sound a bit Orwellian. Telling free people where they can and cannot live may seem a little extreme. What is more extreme is having career politicians drunk with power spending future generation’s money on programs they can’t pay for. We are at a time in our nation’s history in which the only real solutions require real drastic measures.

The truth is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we take away Congress’s power we can return it to its rightful owners; we the people. Most Democrats who read this will think I’m crazy. Even some Republicans will think this is a bad idea; however most limited government Conservatives will love it. My only hope is that those members of Congress who believe in freedom, liberty, and limited government read my article and introduce legislation based on this idea. A good idea can only become a great idea when it is acted upon.

As a political strategist, commentator, and radio talk show host my job is to give solutions, not talking points. I may not always be right, but I am always thinking outside the box about different ways to make America a better, stronger, and freer country. If we are serious about saving this country and truly believe in a limited government it is time we put our money where our mouth is and dismantle Washington, once and for all.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dreams from my surrogate father
Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
The puppets of Pyongyang

Apologize For What?

rigerousintuition2.ca

“Apologize for what?”

These three words have inspired and motivated millions of patriotic Americans. They have become a calling card to Conservatives everywhere who are sick and tired of out of control liberalism destroying this great country. On the anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death I’m sure he is looking down on us from that special reserved spot in heaven where the heroes lay and is smiling. In the post Andrew Breitbart Conservative era, his legacy lives on and his influence continues to grow.

From Twitter to Facebook and everything in-between, Andrew is alive and well in spirit. His death to most Conservatives, including myself is one you will always remember and not soon forget. Like a great fallen warrior his disciples have picked up where he has left off. Their very simple and loyal battle cry is, “I Am Breitbart.”

Andrew Breitbart was someone who was comfortable swimming in the belly of the beast and always relished the hatred and vitriol that he received from the left. He wore it like a badge of honor; never backing down or shying away. Andrew said things out loud that most of us would only think and that is what made him so effective yet controversial. He was the type of guy who would take ten to the chin just to deliver the one knockout punch.

Breitbart was unapologetic and his “apologize for what?” has posthumously become his trademark. He never let the left get away with anything which is why he was so demonized by them. His undercover investigative work was a major contributing factor to exposing the radical group ACORN. His work is the reason they were forced to change their name and are now thankfully defunded by Congress.

When the liberal media started to run stories about how the Tea Party was racist he called them out on it. Andrew knew that playing the race card was a Saul Alinsky tactic used by the left whenever they were losing the argument. Brilliantly, he offered a 100,000 dollar grant payable to the United Negro College Fund if they could find even one shred of evidence of racism at Tea Party rallies. Needless to say, the UNCF is still 100,000 dollars poorer.

His untimely death has always struck me as a little peculiar. Although I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories I do find the timing of his death remarkably odd. At the 2012 CPAC event, Andrew spoke about releasing “something big” on March 1st that apparently was going to be very damaging to Barack Obama. He spoke passionately about finally “vetting” Barack Obama and doing the job the liberal media has not done and refuses to do. Then coincidentally, the day he was to release this damaging information he allegedly dies of a heart attack?

More importantly, the media was very quick to point out that Andrew had a history of heart problems. The Los Angeles Police Department’s full investigation into Andrew’s death did not find any foul play and the Coroner’s Office performed an autopsy and full toxicology report which also turned up nothing.

Andrew Breitbart may be gone but his legacy still lives on. Like in war, when one soldier goes down the next soldier picks up the fallen soldier’s weapon and keeps on firing. Let’s just hope our aim is as good as his was. In this ideological war we find ourselves in we must master the strategies and tactics that Andrew perfected.

The silent majority in this country can no longer afford to be silent, or silenced. We can no longer be made to feel guilty or ashamed for our beliefs. We must be forceful in our convictions and be unapologetic for having them. This war is not about left versus right, it is about right versus wrong. This is about two very different visions for America. It is one of freedom and opportunity or slavery and bondage. As another great patriot Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not passed down through the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed down to our children and their children to do the same.”

Andrew knew this all too well and he lived his life on the frontlines of this battle. So the next time a liberal asks you to apologize for your beliefs, you tell them “apologize for what”?

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
Welcome to the dependent states of America
Obamacare is bad for business and your health
How to end the class warfare argument

Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?

images
Pope Benedict XVI sudden resignation brings with it history, health, and heroics. He is the first Pope to resign in almost 600 years. His age, declining health, and strength were all reasons for his resignation.

The 85 year old head of the Catholic Church stated, “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.”

He continues, “However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

The words The Pope chose were very revealing. At one point he talks about the physical strength it takes to lead the Catholic Church. On the other hand he reveals the emotional toll it has taken on him as well. When one feels as though they are fighting a battle that doesn’t seem to be getting any easier it has a profound affect on them; especially the elderly.

When The Pope talks about questions in deep relevance he is referring to America turning their backs on God as a society. The rapidly changing world he is referring to is the speed at which more Americans than ever are denouncing the Church by switching from the Catholic faith to the religion of Social Justice.

The practice of Social Justice by the Catholic Left has been gaining in political power in America and around the world for years. From embracing Gay Marriage and homosexuality to the acceptance by many Catholics of the practice of abortion the Catholic Left has been gaining in influence. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capital punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted by the practice of euthanasia for unwanted babies and the elderly infirm.

Fighting for your values is not an easy task. It can be draining both psychically and emotionally. It is also not a young man’s game either. Pope Benedict XVI realized this and understood that in order to help the Catholic Church move forward that he would need to take a step back.

So who should replace him?

Given the factors that lead to Pope Benedict XVI decision to step down the next Pope should be younger, healthier, and stronger both psychically and emotionally. He should be more charismatic and possess more passion. He should be able to fight to preserve the Catholic Church and its teachings worldwide and never back down from an ideological challenge.

There has never been an American Pope in the entire history of the Papacy, but maybe that could change. Although history and long odds are stacked against him, the perfect replacement for Pope Benedict XVI would be the current Arch Bishop of New York Timothy M. Dolan.

Cardinal Dolan is relatively young at age 63, he is in seemingly good health, and he has already proven to be a much needed and reliable conservative voice for not only the Catholic Church but more importantly for our Judeo-Christian nation as a whole.

Cardinal Dolan has been on the frontlines in the battle for religious freedom. He was a leading voice against the Obama Administration’s far reaching mandate on contraception. In a CBS interview, Cardinal Dolan condemned the interference of the government in what he viewed as the outright dismissal of the right to religious conscience and freedom. His position lead to the Obama Administration slightly changing their policy in regards to the contraception mandate.

Cardinal Dolan is also staunchly pro-life. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Cardinal Dolan strongly rebuked then Senator Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for misrepresenting timeless Church doctrine on the issue of abortion. He also criticized the University of Notre Dame for allowing the most radical pro abortion President in the history of the United States to give the graduating class its commencement speech, calling it a “big mistake.”

Cardinal Dolan is also a big supporter of traditional marriage. He understands the dangers of changing the definition of traditional marriage and the far reaching consequences it can have on society. In a 2009 New York Post interview he said, “There is an in-built code of right and wrong that is imbedded in the human DNA that defines marriage between one man and one woman for life. If we go tampering with the definition of marriage than we will be in big trouble.” For more on the importance of preserving traditional marriage see http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-defense-of-marriage-act-should-never-be-repealed

There are a host of other great reasons why Cardinal Dolan would be the best choice as the new Pope but the main reason is he has been a proven fighter against the left and particularly the Obama Administration. He has been that constant thorn in the side of Barack Obama and the rest of the leftist ideologues in America. He will not back down in the battle between traditionalism and secularism. He understands the threat the Catholic Church is facing from Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Islamofascism here in America and around the world.

America and the rest of the world need a new spiritual leader with the capability, charisma, and intellect to change disbelieving hearts and minds. Our religious freedoms and long standing traditions are under constant threat from an enemies both foreign and domestic. Having someone like Cardinal Dolan in our corner will give us the strength and determination to endure these battles and emerge victorious.
..

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Traditional conservatism versus secular liberalism and the Jewish voter
Why The Defense of Marriage Act should never be repealed
Are we still a center right country?
Exposing the tactics and language of the left

Protesters Set to Take on Media Bias at “Rage Against the Media” Rally in L.A.

Conservative Daily News‘ own Kira Davis and the conservative comedian and author Evan Sayet will be among those leading a raucous but respectful group of protesters at the Rage Against the Media rally being held today at CBS Studios on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Dr. Karen Siegumund, who holds a doctorate in Education and American Culture, is the key organizer of what she hopes is an uprising of American citizens who have had enough of mainstream media bias. The media cover-ups of Fast & Furious and Benghazigate show that today’s journalists are less impartial observers and reporters of news and relevant issues more activists with a progressive ideological agenda.

As noted by the protesters, long-time Democratic strategist Pat Caddell recently said that “[The press has] made themselves …the enemy of the American people,” while Roger L. Simon wrote, “We are the victims of a media coup d’état and are currently living under it.”

As I put it earlier at Independent Journal Review:

The American people’s trust in the Obama lapdog media is crumbling, which shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone who reads news from both the right and the left side of the aisle. The new low of 40% “fair amount/great deal” of confidence in the media reported by Gallup signals the jig is up for the pretend non-partisan media.

The decline in ratings comes mostly from Republicans and Independents, as Hot Air reports. Mainstream media trust from Independents has dropped from 50% to 31% since 2004.

If Americans are concerned about mainstream media bias, this is their chance to rally with other citizens to do something about it. Hopefully, this is only the first of many more such rallies to come.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

The awesomely intelligent and vivacious Kira Davis is away on business, so CDN blogger extraordinaire has the high honor of guest-hosting a sprawling, fast-paced and informative show. From Paul Ryan’s veep positives and non-negatives to Obama’s increasingly vicious and boring attack ads, we’ll hit everything that happened in the last week worth knowing and what to expect in the week ahead.

Tune in tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Hey girl, don’t miss it!

Kyle Becker is a frequent OTNN talk radio commentator.

 

Ai Politics, Kira Davis And Alex Kauffman Discuss The Trayvon Martin Case

In this virtual round table discussion, ConservativeDailyNews.com’s Kira Davis and Alex Kauffman call into Ai Politics’s weekend show (Married To The Game) and talk about the Trayvon Martin case.

All three commenters agree that the tragic story of Trayvon Martin’s death is high on emotion and short on facts.  There are many things that America’s news media seemed to get wrong when it came to informing our public.  As of the time this conversation was recorded, there had been rallies and riots and even rewards for the capture of George Zimmerman, but there were still very few facts, and many questions had gone unanswered.

Kira, Ai, and Alex talk about the media’s shortcomings, the senselessness of the the tragedy, and the opportunism of people who have been involved in controlling the conversation.  Listen to this compelling trialogue as three of CDN’s contributors discuss one of the most polarizing and tragic issues facing us right now.

Click here for the iPhone and iPad version.

[mp3player config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ai-Kira-And-Alex-Discuss-Trayvon-Martin-March-24th.mp3]

Has Santorum Peaked at Just the Right Time?

Wednesday night’s CNN GOP debate from Arizona was important for a couple of reasons: with the Michigan primary and Super Tuesday just around the corner, this may well be the last primary debate of the season.  Also, this was the first debate after the incredible Santorum surge placed him as a solid frontrunner recently.  There was no doubt that there would be a target painted on the Senator as big as Joe Biden’s suspiciously shiny forehead.  Many viewers tuned in just to see how Santorum would fair as the “main target”.

One thing is for certain – being the frontrunner is a lot harder than being the underdog.  As the underdog, Santorum has been tenacious, steady and impressive.  As the frontrunner Wednesday night he seemed slightly nervous and not nearly as confident.  It was not a terrible performance at all, but next to the always consistent Mitt Romney and the king of debates – Newt Gingrich- Santorum had difficulty finding his rhythm.  Of course, there is Ron Paul to consider as well. Please save your hate mail about how no one takes him seriously, Paul fans.  People do take him seriously and that’s his biggest problem.  Moderator John King ended the debate with the question “What is a common misconception the media makes about you as a candidate”- to which Paul answered, “That I can’t win.” He asserted that everyone keeps saying he can’t win and it’s not true.  I know Ronulans applauded that answer, but it made me think that perhaps everyone keeps saying he can’t win because he isn’t winning! So don’t be offended that I often leave Paul out of the mix.  He isn’t on the radar (yet) as far as actual wins go, so in that respect I don’t count him as a viable candidate.  Please direct all of your hate mail to my editor, Rich Mitchell at Conservativedailynews.com.  He loves it.

The real issue in Wednesday’s debate is whether or not Santorum performed well enough to hold on to his dwindling lead in the Michigan polls. A win over Romney in Romney’s own home state could very well permanently tip the scales of this election. Santorum needed to at least maintain his status as a serious contender.  I don’t know if he did that or not in this debate.  This is what I do know: voters are already experiencing severe primary fatigue.  The ups and downs of this process have been unpredictable and draining, to say the least.  I think at this point, with only 4 men left in the race most people have made up their minds about who they want to win.  I’m not convinced that at this point in the race a good or bad debate performance will spell certain doom for any of the candidates, because I believe  voters are tired of the soundbites and they’ve pretty much made their choices.  Santorum voters will see a decent performance by a guy for whom everyone is lining up to smack around, from every angle lately.  Newt voters will find the usual satisfaction in his stellar debate performance – but on a side note, without the debate platforms Newt isn’t nearly as visible or loud in the general media.  Mitt fans will be pleased with his steady confidence and well-positioned attacks on his new frontrunner adversary.  And Paul fans…well, they are nothing if not loyal. No minds will be changed on his end, no matter how good or bad his debates go.

Clearly Santorum has benefited from surging during this relatively long period between debates.  His strength is in the ground campaign and not as a “frontrunner debater”. The rest between debates has given him time to work his ground strategy and voters haven’t had to see him face the direct attacks from his opponents on a national stage.  Had Santorum been surging any earlier it seems very likely the final 4 might be looking a bit different than it does now.  As it stands, Santorum may have peaked at just the right time. We’ll know soon enough.

Be sure to check in with conservativedailynews.com for all the latest in the primary races and campaigns leading up to Super Tuesday.

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Obama, What Specifically Does "Smart" Mean?

 What does “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threat” mean? What does “We need to be smart, strategic and set priorities.” mean? What does “‘evolve’ to find new ways to meet its existing commitments” mean?

Those are some of the things President Barack Hussein Obama said on Thursday, January 5, 2012, as he announced cuts of some $500 billion to the military budget. Weasel words with no precise meaning? Sure, but what else have we ever gotten from Obama? As usual, he had many euphemisms, but few specifics. In fact, the ONLY specific he offered was the amount of the budget reduction: almost $500 billion over 12 years. Further, Obama’s announcement is completely separate from the “super-committee,” which announced in November, 2011, that it had failed. The super-committee was tasked with reducing at least $1.2 trillion from the next ten years’ spending. Failure meant the difference is to be made up in massive across-the-board cuts. Certain budget areas, including entitlements, was exempt from the cuts, but defense was not.

In 1967, Defense spending was 9.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while Entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) spending was 3.5%. In 2011, Defense spending had fallen to 5% of GDP, while Entitlement spending rose to 10%. Further, Defense spending is projected in 2021 to be 4% of GDP while Entitlement spending is projected in 2021 to be 13.3% of GDP.

BTW, here is a breakdown of the FY2011 budget: (note: these are amounts, not GDP)

  • Medicare and Medicaid – mandatory – $1,370.8 trillion – 36.9%
  • Social Security – mandatory – $760.7 trillion – 20.5%
  • National Debt Interest – mandatory – $241.6 trillion – 6.5%
  • Defense – not mandatory – $729.9 trillion – 19.7%
  • Nondefense – not mandatory – $610.5 trillion – 16.4%

What good will “mandatory” spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security do if we don’t have a country? Does Obama and his followers really think that if this country is taken over by force that the new rulers will continue mandatory spending on US citizens? Are they really that näive? If so, then I have a bridge in NYC in which they may be interested. Why is it permissible to cut the military, to downsize, to reduce the number of soldiers, but not to reduce the number of policemen and firemen? Don’t they ALL do the same thing – protect us? Why can the military’s equipment be allowed to age without a word from liberals? But let police or firefighters’ equipment age and liberals get quite vocal. And why must the military’s strategy, which has been planned for years, be changed at the expense of entitlements? Why were entitlement budget reductions verboten when the super-committee was negotiating, but not defense budget reductions?

Buying votes at the expense of the defense of this country is bad enough, and not being able protect ourselves or project power where and when we need to is shameful. But we should not be surprised – Obama knows no shame.

Strength creates options. Weakness limits them. But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.

Three Bills for One Tragedy – Penn State & California-style Solutions

By now the tragic, shocking events that transpired at Penn State are common public knowledge.  Ex-assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was re-arrested last week on new charges of child molestation.  That brings the charges against him up to more than 50 counts.  Longtime coach Joe Paterno lost his job as the investigation continues.  The entire scandal from top to bottom is enough to make this mother two young children weep.  It is heartbreaking, infuriating and disturbing.

Naturally, when a story like this comes to light many people begin to ask the question, “How did this happen? What can be done to make sure it never happens again?”  A worthy question and one that not only the entire Penn State community will have to address, but also educational institutions across the country.  Here in California the question has been posed quite publicly.  The answer?  Why, more bills of course!  CA Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) will introduce a bill that would require all athletic organizations to provide employees with training on how to identify and report child abuse.  That doesn’t sound so crazy, does it?  Not necessarily, but consider this: last month two separate California representatives, Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) and state Sen. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) put forward two separate bills that would also require employees of universities and colleges to report suspected cases of child abuse to law enforcement.  That’s not all…Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has introduced similar legislation in D.C.   Why on earth would three different state politicians propose three different bills that cover the same issue?  Is it because they think 3 times the bills = 1.9 times the caring (I used government math for that one)?

Politics is big business in the state of California.  Besides a salary that averages $113, 000/year and a $162/day per diem (year round, don’t forget), politicians also earn big money with book deals and on the speaking circuit.  How do you become someone others will want to pay to speak at their fundraiser dinners and company retreats?  You pass a bill that has your name on it.  The more sensational, the better.  The Smith-Jones Human Waste bill or Jones-Smith Cat Leash bill simply aren’t exciting enough.  No one is moved (forgive the pun) by bills that deal with human waste and taking cats for walks, as an example ( by the way, these are not real bills…yet.  In Califorina-stan anything is possible when you have a full-time legislature run solely and completely by Democrats).  What you want as a politician is a bill that catches the eye, that speaks to emotions and very real public fears.  You want a bill that proports to solve a problem publicly and definitively, something you can speak about around the country.  You want a bill that identifies you as a public crusader.  It has little to do with content and public safety and everything to do with pride and money.

I understand people want to know that nothing like what happened at Penn State will ever happen again.  I don’t suggest that it is a poor idea to ask educational institutions to train their employees and talk about how to handle (God forbid) such situations, should they ever arise.  I am just like you, dear reader – disgusted and heartbroken at the selfish employees at Penn State who allowed young boys, children to be raped and molested right under their noses for years.  We have laws to deal with such heinous crimes.  But what is needed here is not more laws.  Our nation is drowning in legislation, much of it redundant.  With each new public tragedy there come more and more cries for better laws, stricter laws, updated laws, more specific laws.  There are so many laws on the books to be broken that our jails and prisons are overflowing with petty criminals, causing more violent offenders to be released early to create more room (that’s happening here in California thanks to…another law!)  Its natural to want to prevent more tragedy, but at what cost? In California Governor Jerry Brown has more than 600 bills on his desk awaiting approval before the end of the year.  They range from tighter helmet laws to school athletic awards.  The gridlock in Sacramento makes Washington look like amateurs. We don’t need to legislate common sense.  The national out-cry in response to the Penn State scandal proves that most Americans get that not reporting child abuse is wrong.  Do we really need more laws – THREE separate laws – to confirm that sentiment?

Every tragedy does not require a new law.  Our society would grind to a halt if every terrible accident or event resulted in a new law being passed.  What happened in Pennsylvania was outrageous.  The prepatrator is going to jail, hopefully forever.  Writing new, vague laws that most likely will end up creating even more fraud and trapping individuals in compliance loopholes will not make our kids safer. Just imagine the things that would be reported to the authorities under these new laws.  Every pat on the back, warm squeeze or lingering look could be reported by school employees terrified of prosecution if real allegations are ever proven; not to mention child molesting is a very serious charge and the simple suggestion of it can ruin an innocent person’s life forever.  Its too risky. Look at what’s become of sexual harassment laws in the workplace or the zero-tolerance policies in public schools.  We now have children being suspended for kissing or calling their teachers “cute”.  Why wouldn’t a new law governing issues of sexuality and molestation in higher education turn into the same fiasco?

I too want to ensure this never happens again but adding 3 more bills to the Governor’s desk is not going to change anything for the boys whose lives were destroyed by Sandusky.  We don’t need better laws.  We just need better people…and that subject is a longer post for a different day.

 

Lesbian Couple Gives Son Hormone Therapy:Says He is Transgender Child

Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel are a lesbian couple living in California with their two sons.  Maybe.  The couple’s youngest child is an 11-year-old boy named Thomas, but Thomas doesn’t want to be a boy.  Thomas wants to be a girl.  So the Moreno-Lobel’s did what any normal parent would do – they began giving Thomas hormone treatments to delay the onset of puberty until he is old enough to fully “transition” into a female through surgery, if he so chooses.  In the meantime, Thomas lives as Tammy, and prefers it that way.

The couple says their son (who has developmental issues with speech and communication) began telling them he was a girl at age 3, and started mutilating his genitals at 7.  Being aware of the 50% suicide rate among “transgender” youth, the women believe that helping Thomas become a girl earlier might spare him the pain of dealing with the choice as an adult. Says Moreno, “What is so frightening to me is that you would be willing to say “no” just because you don’t like it – even though your child could lose their life?”.

The couple says they will continue to give Thomas his hormone blockers to delay puberty until he is old enough to decide (14-15, in their opinion) if he wants to continue life as a boy.  Doctors warn that there could be severe long term medical issues from giving a growing child such new and controversial drug therapies, and compare it to allowing an undeveloped child to undergo cosmetic surgery. Read more about Thomas and his mothers here and here.

As a mother I find the whole thing disgusting and disturbing.  The couple has had Thomas in “transgender therapy” and their entire community in the San Francisco (of course) area has been supportive.  With absolutely no one in his life to help him even consider that this might be a mental illness Thomas has no alternative but accept that he wants to be a girl.  Do these mothers realize that children are physically incapable of making informed decisions for themselves?  Research shows that the area of the brain that controls impulse and reasoning abilities is not fully developed until at least the age of 25.  That is why you can’t rent a car in this country by yourself if you are under 25.  Even rental companies understand that you don’t let small children make big decisions.  The Moreno-Lobel family may very well be condemning their son to the suicidal feelings they are trying to avoid.  It is not far-fetched to believe that he may come to the realization as an adult that he, indeed, is a man.  By then it may be too late and one can only imagine the torment of that life.

Another thing to consider is that the very nature of their family could be what is causing Thomas his problems in the first place.  While not always the case, delay in speech development in children often indicates trauma at home.  Could it be that Thomas is not fully comfortable with having two mothers and no father?  What do the women tell Thomas about men and women?  Does their anger toward male sexuality come across on a daily basis to their young son?  Perhaps Thomas sees his two mothers as the most important people in the world to him and naturally wants to be like them,  not different from them.  Psychiatrist and Fox News Contributor Keith Ablow says, “Obviously, when two females adopt a male child, then assert that the child is not actually male, but is, instead, actually a female — like both of them. Everyone in the family should be psychologically evaluated in a comprehensive way before a step like gender reassignment is considered”.

The whole idea of gender reassignment is an aberration.  It is nothing more than a form of mutilation.  One cannot change creation.  You cannot change what you were created to be.  Proof?  If Chastity (Chaz) Bono commits a murder and DNA is found at the scene, it will come back belonging to a woman.  You can cut off your breast or your penis and stop hair from growing on your face, but you can’t change your DNA.  You can’t!

My mother’s heart  grieves for Thomas.  He needs someone to step in and stand up for him; to tell his sadly deficient mothers that he is screaming for help, not breasts.  They are robbing him of his health, and the chance to fulfill a destiny and purpose that most certainly is connected to his gender.   Being gay doesn’t make you objective.  Its not some magical lifestyle that makes you more intelligent or informed than the other 99% of America.  Its possible to be gay and be totally delusional.  I believe that is the case for Moreno and Lobel.  For them, the idea that Thomas may actually be sick is to admit that their “modern” family isn’t as picture-perfect as they would like others to believe.  Be it because there is no father in the home, because they are gay, or simply because they are just regular parents like the rest of us who sometimes make mistakes with our kids, this couple is raising a confused child.  Rather than admit their whole family needs help they have decided to condemn Thomas to a life of confusion in what will already be the most perplexing time of his life – puberty.  The Moreno-Lobels have selfishly chosen to use their son’s pain to make a political statement.  Its disgusting and disturbing and I have no doubt that when we follow up with Thomas in 20 years we will find a deeply conflicted and depressed young person, barring a miracle.  A child is not a social experiment.  A child is a child and should be treated as such.

 

Lawrence O'Donnell is a Tool

Dear Lawrence O’Donnell:
You are a tool. I mean that in most modern sense. You are not an instrument of aid, like the type we use to build things and create things. You are just a tool; obtuse and incapable of independent operation. Your interview with Herman Cain last Thursday was a prime example of your tool-ish-ness. I see you decided to hop into your time machine and travel all the way back to 1992, when Americans actually considered military service a deal breaker and race baiting was a surefire way to fluster a candidate, because the media remained steadfast in its refusal to break the Democrat Party lines or retract their many distortions and lies. Back in 1992 there was no conservative media, no Andrew Breitbart, no talk radio domination and no conservative internet industry. There was only Rush Limbaugh to fight the media. In 1992, you could effectively discredit a candidate simply by inferring he was a draft dodger. There would no information push to combat what was then considered a negative characterization. I realize you’re getting old, so I’ll try to be gentle in reminding you that this is 2011. While Vietnam played a major role in the lives of people your age and older, it is not much more than a historical event for voters like me. Oh yes, we recognize the importance of that war, and we respect and honor those who served there. But it doesn’t hold the emotional pull that it used to. Those of us in our 30’s and 40’s had our lives shaped by 9/11 and the ensuing war on terror. Mentioning Vietnam service in any interview does nothing to characterize you as a hard-hitting journalist, it only makes you look old and out of touch. Herman Cain worked for the navy at the time…as a ROCKET scientist. You didn’t seem to be embarrassed at all about missing that fact. In fact, you doubled down on your Mr.Mc-Tool act by using John Kerry’s “service” to compare to Herman Cain. John Kerry, who “served” in Vietnam and lost a presidential campaign. John “Swiftboat” Kerry. Smooth, O’Donnell. Vietnam was important in our nation’s history, and affected the lives of many Americans; but when you are a 37-year-old mother struggling to make ends meet, unable to secure credit and forced to raid her kids’ college funds to stay afloat, a candidate’s service history during a war fought nearly 40 years ago is not on the radar. Snap to, O’Donnell! Its 2011; we have cell phones and everything.

You did not have the decency or intellectual fortitude to stop Oldies but Goodies hit parade there. Straight from top of the charts, 1992-style – race! Before there was Andrew Breitbart and internet domination by conservative pundits, tools like you could get away with pseudo-journalism disguised as race baiting. You- rich, White guy- have the nerve to try to paint Herman Cain as a racist (you know he’s Black, right?) because he chose to be in school instead of giving up his soap bar and toothbrush to sit in college offices and public parks as a “protester” during the civil rights movement. Excuse me, Tool Hand Luke, but for Black people, education is one of the most important and coveted privileges we have. Black families all over America sacrifice every day to make sure their children can attend college. For many who live in the inner city, college is that last hope of escaping the ghetto life. Many Black people feel an almost desperate need to see their children through higher education, as a direct result of what our community has suffered in the history of this country. That’s what Herman Cain was doing during the civil rights movement. He was doing what every other Black parent in America at that time and even today asked their child to do – get an education and break out of the lower class lifestyle Blacks had traditionally been relegated to. Your arrogance in suggesting Cain was somehow “selling out” for choosing education over public protests is astounding. As if that is the measure of a human being! I guess rich, privileged White guys like you don’t understand what its like to scrape and work for every advancement in your life. Here’s a suggestion for you to add to your Toolbag: until you’re willing to give up every comfort in your life to go protest on behalf of disadvantaged minorities across the country, shut up about others doing the same.

Cain seems like a good-natured fellow, and was able to laugh off your tired and ridiculous line of questioning. Do you remember laughing, Lawrence? Its something that happens around your mouth area when you are enjoying a conversation or activity. I realize you thought this interview was going to make you look like a hard-hitting, no nonsense reporter, but it actually just made you look like Janeane Garofalo – not a compliment by the way. You both wear that same smug, superior, self-satisfied look on your faces when discussing the intelligence of Black Americans. Do you use the same plastic surgeon, I wonder?

MSNBC seems determined to solidify its place in the gutter of cable news programming. You seem just as satisfied to lay in the sewage with them. That’s a common trait among tools – they love the smell of their own feces. You, sir, are a slime and it infuriates me to think that people like you make millions of dollars while hard-working, honest families like my own struggle to provide a decent life. Do me a favor, won’t you? While you’re visiting the ’90s stay away from that Lewinsky girl; we don’t need you messing with the time-space continuum. And when your time machine finally does Read more

OWS Manifesto: Declaration of the Occupation of NYC

Recently I posted a piece on the difference between tea party rallies and the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  Perhaps annoyed by the tone of my piece, an anonymous commenter tipped me off to the list of "demands" of the OWS group in order to prove that the movement is purposeful and coherent.

As it turns out, the protesters have managed to create a communication wing of sorts.  They call themselves the NYC General Assembly (not the governing one, in case you’re wondering). They say they are an "open, participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomous collective forces within and against the constant crises of our times."    Just reading that sentence makes my head spin.  Part of their horizontal process has been to create what they call their Declaration of the Occupation of New York City.  Those crazy kids and their fancy titles!  It is less a manifesto than a list of grievances against the atrocities of corporations.  No one specific, just…corporations.  Man, corporations are horrible!  I mean, aren’t they just the worst? Here it is, in its entirety.  There is just too much to say about this document, so read for yourself.  

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

After all that fuss they mean to tell us this document is not all-inclusive? There’s more?

« Older Entries