RANDOM SHOTS - Sandra Bullock, NYC Newpaper Gives Addresses Of Gun Owners, Ranchers At Odds On Border, Chinese Forced Labor Camps, Rural Vote Went To Romney, and More!

New York Newspaper Faces Backlash After Publishing Map Of Gun Permit Holders

So let's see how this works. A citizen does nothing illegal by obtaining a gun permit, yet gets his name published in the local newspaper the same as if he were a child molester?

Imagine that for a moment. A local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have legally obtained handgun permits.

The online map was published by The Journal News along with an article under the headline: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood."

For me, I'm hoping our local newspaper publishes the names and addresses of everyone who legally contributed to the Obama re-election campaign, or who is legally registered as a Democrat.

Maybe we can get an online map published along with an article under the headline: "The fool next door: What you don't know about the Obama supporters in your neighborhood."

While that was being facetious, I'm being serious when I ask why hasn't the same Newspaper seen fit to publish the names and addresses of child molesters and rapists, and other criminals, yet has the gaul to publish the names and addresses of law abiding citizens who have done nothing to warrant such an attack on their privacy?

The newspaper obtained, and then published, the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The article, in explaining the decision to publish the information, pointed to the school massacre in nearby Newtown, Connecticut, as an excuse to publish such an invasion of privacy.

The Journal News is using the school massacre as a way of saying that they are responding to the supposed concerns of some residents about which of their neighbors might have firearms.

But, unlike what the idiots at The Journal News assumed, their readers swiftly condemned their move to ridicule their neighbors.

They pointed out that the interactive map could make the gun owners a target, but also make clear to would-be robbers which homes do not contain a gun - and safer to rob!

"Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?" one reader wrote on Facebook.

"You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders," wrote another. "These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti-gun lobbyist who I am sure are going to treat them like monsters."

The newspaper, in a written statement, defended the decision to run the names.

"The massacre in Newtown remains top-of-mind for many of our readers," the statement said. "In the past week, conversation on our opinion pages and on our website, LoHud.com, has been keenly focused on gun control.

"Our readers are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods. We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law public-records requests."

“New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information,” said Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group.

 Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government and an expert in the state’s Freedom of Information law, has said all government records and data are presumed public unless a specific statute bars their release. Names and addresses are specifically deemed public records, he said.

But Why?

The Journal News has not answered why they would do such a horrible thing and put people at risk.

“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news.

 “People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said. “Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied.”

So that's it? The reason they did this is because they can? That's their whole justification if an adult or child gets hurt during a robbery of those homes, or say another that has been marked as defenseless? People are concerned and want to know, and we can, so we did, that's their whole justification.

The map showed the locations of pistol permit holders -- though did not specify whether those shown actually owned a weapon. Since rifles and shotguns can be bought without a permit, that information was not included.

The newspaper separately noted that the reporter on the story "owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

But honestly, this falls under the heading of not right.

Why stupid? Well, by getting the names and addresses of these law abiding citizens and posting them because they violate the agenda of that newspaper, it goes to the concept that just because you can - doesn't make what you did right.

The Journal News did something that they can legally do, but it wasn't right that they did it. No matter how they want to frame it, it just isn't right to treat law abiding citizens with such contempt simply because they are doing something that you don't like.

I was actually hoping that someone would publish the home addresses of The Journal News Staff because they are responsible for this.

Janet Hasson, Publisher, The Journal News/LoHud.com
3 Gate House Lane, Mamaroneck, NY 10543
(914) 694-5204

Dwight R Worley, Reporter, The Journal News/LoHud.com
230-6 139th Ave., Queens, NY 11413
(718) 527-0832
Work Email: dworley@lohud.com
Twitter: @dwightworley FB: LinkedIN: http://...

Cynthia R Lambert (aka CynDee Royle), Editor, The Journal News/LoHud.com
17 McBride Ave., White Plains, NY 10603
(914) 948-9388
Work Email: croyle@lohud.com

Robert F. Rodriguez, Visual Editor, The Journal News/LoHud.com
420 Riverside Dr, Apt 7A New York, NY 10025-7748
(212) 222-4566

Nancy Cutler, Opinion Editor, The Journal News/LoHud.com
9 Woodwind Ln., Spring Valley, NY 10977
(845) 354 3485 Home Phone
(845) 578-2403 Work Phone
Work Email: ncutler@lohud.com

Barbara L Nackman, Reporter, The Journal News/LoHud.com
279 Farrington Ave Tarrytown, NY 10591
(914) 332-5185
Work Email: bnackman@lohud.com
Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Reporter, The Journal News/LoHud.com
306 Quaker Rd Chappaqua, NY 10514
(914) 238-4607
Work Email: svenugop@lohud.com

Michael J Risinit, Reporter, The Journal News/LoHud.com
42 Robinson Lane Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
(845) 454-2278

Seth Harrison, Photographer, The Journal News/LoHud.com
107 Valleyview Rd Irvington, NY 10533
(914) 231-5411
Work Email: sharriso@lohud.com

Ed Forbes, Digital Editor, The Journal News/LoHud.com
Mount Kisco, NY 10549
(914) 696-8488
Work Email: eforbes@lohud.com

David McKay Wilson, Columnist, The Journal News/LoHud.com
104 Topland Rd Mahopac, New York 10541
Work Email: dwilson3@lohud.com

Journal News Employees

An interactive map with publicly available information about The Journal News employees including home addresses, phone numbers and photos.

 The Journal News Staff - Where They Live!  

By publishing their home addresses, maybe they can learn how vulnerable one can feel when people do things to innocent people.

By experiencing the possibility of a threat just as they have caused others, maybe they will rethink their actions in the future?   I can only hope so.

The actions of anti-gun folks like The Journal News just proves more than ever that we have to bond together to fight them.  

SECOND SHOT!  

Ranchers split over proposal to waive environmental reviews for US border security plan

In Arizona, wWhen Dan Bell drives through his 35,000-acre cattle ranch, he speaks of the hurdles that the Border Patrol faces in his rolling green hills of oak and mesquite trees -- the hours it takes to drive to some places, the wilderness areas that are generally off-limits to motorized vehicles, the environmental reviews required to extend a dirt road.

John Ladd offers a different take from his 14,000-acre spread: the Border Patrol already has more than enough roads and its beefed-up presence has flooded his land and eroded the soil.

Their differences explain why ranchers are on opposite sides of the fence over a sweeping proposal to waive environmental reviews on federal lands within 100 miles of Mexico and Canada for the sake of border security.

The Border Patrol would have a free hand to build roads, camera towers, helicopter pads and living quarters without any of the outside scrutiny that can modify or even derail plans to extend its footprint.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill authored by Utah Republican Rob Bishop in June.

But prospects in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate are extremely slim and chances of President Barack Obama's signature even slimmer. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified in Congress this year that the bill was unnecessary and "bad policy."

Still, an idea that House Republicans kicked around for years has advanced farther in the legislative process than ever before and rekindled discussion over how to balance border security with wildlife protection.

The debate raises some of the same questions that will play out on a larger scale when Congress and the president tackle immigration reform: Is the U.S. border with Mexico secure, considered by some lawmakers to be a litmus test for granting legal residency and citizenship to millions? Has the U.S. reached a point of border security overkill?

Heightened enforcement -- along with a fewer available jobs in the U.S. and an aging population in Mexico -- has brought Border Patrol arrests to 40-year lows.

The U.S. has erected 650 miles of fences and other barriers on the Mexican border, almost all of it after a 2005 law gave the Homeland Security secretary power to waive environmental reviews.

The administration of President George W. Bush exercised its waiver authority on hundreds of miles after years of court challenges and environmental reviews delayed construction on a 14-mile stretch in San Diego.

The Border Patrol, which has doubled to more than 21,000 agents since 2004, has also built 12 "forward operating bases" to increase its presence in remote areas. Instead of driving long distances from their stations every shift, agents stay at the camps for several days.

Lots more needs to be done, according to backers of Bishop's bill to rewrite rules on millions of acres of federal land managed by the Interior and Agriculture departments, including more than 800 miles bordering Mexico and 1,000 miles bordering Canada.

The bill would waive reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and 14 other laws in dozens of wilderness areas, national forests and national parks.

"It's a paralyzing process now," said Bell, 44, as his GMC truck barreled down a dirt road on a 10-mile stretch of his ranch that borders Mexico. "They wanted to put this road in for a decade, probably even longer. They broke ground on it last year."

Bell, a burly, third-generation rancher who leases his land from the Agriculture Department, acknowledges there are noticeably fewer border crossers since the government built a fence on the eastern part of his ranch, near Nogales. In the ranch's west end, the Border Patrol opened one of its camps in 2005 -- a collection of shipping containers that agents use as a base while alternating 12-hour shifts.

Yet migrants continue crossing in some rugged reaches that are well outside of cellphone range. Bell says waiving environmental reviews within 100 miles of the border may be unnecessary but that a 25-mile zone would help immensely.

"There are areas where the agents can't get to," he said. "By the time they get out of the station and get to these remote areas, then hike another two or three hours just to get close to the border, they have to come back because their day is pretty much eaten up. It's really difficult when there's no access out there."

Ladd, a fourth-generation rancher whose spread near Douglas is in a flatter, more easily traveled area of mesquite-draped hills, thinks the Border Patrol has gone far enough. The agency installed four 80-foot camera towers on his land about six years ago. In 2007, it completed a fence along the 10.5 miles of his ranch that borders Mexico.

Rainfall that runs downhill from Mexico is stopped by debris caught in the mesh fence and an adjoining raised road, Ladd says. The water is diverted to other areas, causing floods and soil erosion on his property.

Ladd, 57, thinks the bill would allow the Border Patrol to "run roughshod" over ranches and farms.

"Be careful what you wish for, they're going to tear it up," Ladd tells other ranchers. "Once they get in, it pretty well turns into a parking lot. It's really hard to get them out."

Ladd says the 37 miles of roads on his ranch are enough for the Border Patrol's needs. "Why do you need new ones?" he asks.

The Interior Department raised concerns in a survey of Arizona's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge last year that found nearly 8,000 miles of off-road vehicle trails, blaming much of it on smuggling and Border Patrol activity. It urged the Border Patrol to rely on tools like radars and cameras, which are less threatening to wildlife.

Critics of the Border Patrol's growth have long called new fences, roads and other infrastructure a threat to Sonoran pronghorn, Mexican grey wolves, jaguars and other border wildlife.

A Government Accountability Office report in 2010 offered fodder for both sides of the debate. It found Border Patrol supervisors generally felt land laws didn't hinder them on the job but that the agency sometimes encountered roadblocks. An unnamed agency took four months to review a Border Patrol request to move a camera tower in Arizona, by which time traffic had moved to another area.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who has led opposition to the bill that has largely split along party lines, calls the effort a disguised step toward repealing environmental laws.

"The border has become a very convenient excuse to go after laws that have been on the books for four or five decades," he said. "You plant your flag on the 100 miles (of border) and then build from there."

Bishop dismisses that criticism as a scare tactic and a "lousy argument."

"Sovereign countries control their borders. Anything that stops us from that is a violation of why we are a nation," he said.

THIRD SHOT!

Beer Sales Help Rebuild 16th Century Monastery

Monks in a small Northern California town are rebuilding a 16th Century Spanish monastery with help from what may seem an unlikely source: beer.

The first phase of the building's decades-long restoration project in the Sacramento Valley town of Vina has been completed, with the Chapter House of Ovila now standing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In the 1930s, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst bought the former Trappist monastery— the Santa Maria de Ovila — and imported it from Spain for an estate that was never realized. He had planned to use parts of the church for an indoor swimming pool changing room.

Once that project was scrapped, Hearst donated the monastery's pieces to the city of San Francisco, but the dismantled building sat forgotten in Golden Gate Park for more than 60 years.

The Vina monks eventually convinced the city to let them rebuild it there, and with the help of the Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. in nearby Chico have raised millions to get started.

The brewers created a series of Ovila Abbey ales inspired by Belgian Trappist monks, an order that to this day makes some of the finest beers in the world.

Sierra Nevada Brewing and the monks have raised $7 million over the past 12 years to help with the historic and painstaking reconstruction.

The gothic, limestone building that housed Cistercian monks for hundreds of years is finally erect again.

Still, Father Paul Mark Schwan said another $2 million is needed to finish the project: the building is still without the proper window glass, floors and electricity needed to finish it.

"Will it take another 12 years?" Schwan told the paper. "I prefer it not."

FOURTH SHOT!

White House resorts to Name Calling and Blames "Congressional Stupidity" For Cliff

 President Barack Obama had to cut short another one of his many vacations to get back to Washington and do something that he doesn't like to do - that of doing the business of government.

He had cut his annual taxpayer paid Hawaii Christmas vacation to resume talks to avoid the "fiscal cliff" of automatic year-end tax hikes and spending cuts. If you remember during the last debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said that there was no worry about the nation getting to this fical cliff. I guess he was just kidding!

The White House has now called on Congressional Republicans not to stand in the way of a resolution in the U.S. Congress.

“What we need is for the Senate Minority Leader not to block a vote and for Boehner to allow a vote,” a White House official told ABC News. “The hits from our economy are not coming from outside factors they’re coming from Congressional stupidity."

That's right, his people in the White House actually used the term "Congressional stupidity" to describe resistance to the Obama agenda.

Of course if folks in Congress would say "Presidential stupidity" than they'd probably be called racist, but that's a whole nother subject for another day. Critics of the president are alll called racists.

Obama is now seeking a stripped down deal to prevent tax rates from rising on all but the wealthiest Americans and to stop steep across-the-board spending cuts.

The White House last week proposed a broader package that would have let tax rates stay low for those making up to $400,000, a compromise from the president's previous rate hike threshold of $250,000.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner was unimpressed with the offer and sought unsuccessfully to push his own proposal through Congress, but members of his own Party balked at rate hikes of any kind.

Talks broke down after that and the president and lawmakers left town for the holiday.

The focus will shift to the Senate for a deal, where Obama will rely on an ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to work out a bill that the top Senate Republican, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, will not obstruct.

But even though Obama is trying an end-run on the issue, the House of Representatives must also pass the measure.

"Congressional stubbornness risks again damaging the fragile economy, just as the nation's near-default in 2011 - the result of a stalemate over raising the national borrowing limit - dealt a nascent economic recovery a setback," said an administration official - which was no surprise to anyone.

"If you think about the possibility of Congress failing to act to avert the fiscal cliff, combined with the abomination of what occurred in the summer of 2011, hits to our economy aren't coming from external factors, they're coming from congressional stupidity," the official said.

Since name calling is not a really smart negotiation tactic, I can't wonder why the administration is such a bunch of dumb asses. Especially when they know darn well that they have put off negotiations for the better part of an entire year while Obama shirked his job as president and assumed the role of Campaigner and Chief.

Calling folks names like stupid and pointing fingers is nothing new to this White House, it is just the way they do business. They shirk their duties and their responsibilities, and they get fools to vote for them. And yes, that's just the way it is.

FIFTH SHOT!

More Proof Chinese Forced Labor Camps Manufacturing Goods For Sale In The U.S.

On December 26, 2012, it was reported that an Oregon woman who found a Chinese laborer's plea for help hidden in a box of Halloween decorations says she thinks the letter, which describes brutal conditions inside a work camp, is authentic.

Julie Keith, 42, of Portland, bought a Halloween graveyard kit from Kmart last year and tucked it away in a storage box. When she opened the kit this October, she found the letter tucked in between two Stryofoam headstones.

“If you occasionally buy this product, please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right Organization,” the unsigned letter read. “Thousands people here who are under the persicution [sic] of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever."

The writer said the product was made in Masanjia Labor Camp in Shenyang, China, where laborers work for 15 hours a day without time off on the weekends and holidays, making only 10 yuan ($1.61) per month.

The China director at Human Rights Watch, Sophie Richardson, told The Oregonian that the organization could not confirm the origin or authenticity of the letter.

But Keith told Fox News that she thinks it isn’t a fake, after analyzing the product packaging and showing it to a Chinese co-worker at the Portland Goodwill store where she works, who said it looked authentic.

“I fully believe it is real,” she said, describing how the headstones where the letter was found inside of were sealed together and the box was closed with tape. “It had to of come from where they said.”

Keith posted an image of the letter on Facebook and said she’s been criticized online from people who fear retribution against the workers, as the letter contains their exact location at the camp they are stationed – “Unit 8, Department 2.”

But she added that she is “just trying to spread awareness.”

“It would be nice if these companies were aware of what was happening,” she said.

ICE's Homeland Security Investigations said Tuesday that it is looking into the letter, The Oregonian reported.

Keith told Fox News that she spoke to ICE agents and gave them the box of decorations and the letter, but hasn’t received any updates.

Sears Holdings Corporation, which owns Kmart, said in a statement that it is also investigating the matter.

"Sears Holdings has a Global Compliance Program which helps to ensure that vendors and factories producing merchandise for our company adhere to specific Program Requirements, and all local laws pertaining to employment standards and workplace practices," the company said.

"Failure to comply with any of the Program Requirements, including the use of forced labor, may result in a loss of business or factory termination.”

LAST SHOT!

Republicans Took The Rural America Vote!

That's right, while folks in the city voted for Democrat Barack Obama in the last election, Republican Mitt Romney won rural America.

It appears that a decline in turnout in Rural America is almost entirely attributable to the decision by Democratic voters in Rural America to stay home. As a result, Democrats this year left a good number of rural votes on the table.

Fact is that Romney soundly won rural counties across the entire nation by 59% to Obama's 39%.

The good news is that the 2012 results mark a comeback for Republicans in Rural America.

Believe it or not, in 2008, candidate Barack Obama severely reduced the Republican Party’s rural advantage -  winning nearly 6% more of the rural vote than John Kerry had in 2004.

Obama didn’t close that gap by turning Republicans into Democrats. Republican turnout increased in 2008 in rural counties, but Obama vastly increased the turnout of Democrats living in rural counties at the time.

Remember, the popular vote turned out very close this year indicating that Obama is just not as popular as some in the media are making out. Many believe that an indication of how unpopular Obama is in the nation was demonstrated by the way that rural Democrats stayed home this year.

Turnout was down in 2012 from four years ago.

Most demographic groups voted more Republican in local, state, and for Congress this year than they did in 2008, though the shifts weren’t enough to change the result for the presidency.

One thing that Obama supporters and the media, or the White House, doesn't want to talk about: The vote for Obama was down more than nine percent from 2008 - that's nearly 7 Million less votes for Obama in 2012 than in 2008.

About a third of that decline was due to lower Democratic turnout in rural counties.

Contrast that with the fact that Republican presidential candidates got about the same number of votes in each of the last three elections - between 12.3 and 12.9 million votes.

Democrats Kerry and Obama received just over 8 million rural votes in the 2004 and 2012 elections. In 2008, however, Obama won about 10.6 million rural votes.

Yes, turnout was up in rural America in 2008, an increase of about 3.2 million over the average turnout in rural counties in 2004 and 2012.

But 2.24 million votes out of that increase were Democratic votes. When turnout increased in rural counties in 2008, 70 percent of that increase was attributable to Democratic voters.

Moreover, the turnout in rural counties was disproportionately strong in 2008. In 2008, the rural vote accounted for 18.3% percent of the national total.

Or, think about it this way: One third of President Obama’s decline in votes from 2008 was due to results from rural counties. But those counties make up only 17 percent of the nation’s voters.

The lesson seems to be that there are a lot of Democrats living in rural communities who just don’t vote for one reason or another.

Why did President Obama do so well in 2008, and yet lose more than 2.2 million rural votes four years later?

Well, back in 2008 the Obama campaign certainly concentrated more on rural communities and rural concerns, a huge number of farm and ranch groups supported the Democrat because they thought he support farmers and ranchers - and would enforce anti-trust laws in the food industry.

Four years later, well Rural American found out that Barack Obama was all talk and no action.

His promises about anti-trust enforcement came to nothing, and the President barely set foot in rural America during the campaign this year.

It's a possibility that rural Democrats stayed home because the President didn’t deliver on promises from 2008, and he didn’t show up at all during the 2012 campaign.

There may be another reason why rural Democrats stayed home this year. Some believe that people with minority political beliefs hate to come out into the open and be noticed.

For me, well, when I read that - my bullshit detector went off.

You see, while it might be true tat the majority of rural Democrats don't want to be known, from my experience liberals living in Rural America are one of the biggest problems that we in Rural America have to contend with.

While some expert somewhere might really believe that folks with liberal attitudes keep quiet in rural America, or that they participate less in public affairs, or vote less, that's not the experience everywhere. And honestly, it's certainly not the case here.

Most of us know who the liberals are in our area, with a population of 189 in Glencoe, we pretty much know there names and where they live. We also know who they support and what kind of liberal Communist ass changes they want to bring into our lives.

While some educated statistics collector thinks he knows something about liberals in rural America, and he might go on and on about how there may be some sort social pressures that are disproportionately suppressing the rural Democratic vote, I don't see that happening at all.

If anything, liberals are more organized and willing to tell their neighbors how to live - than conservatives would be - and that lends to their desire to get into politics. Liberals crave political influence.

And yes, that's the reason why so many rural communities are always having to battle their desire to change things from what traditionally works to some Communist way of life that has been a proven failure.

For me, I believe that the decline in Democrat turnout in rural counties is due mostly to a decline in the number of Democratic voters in rural areas.

Yes, maybe having Obama in the White House has changed something for the better? After all, there is a real possibility that rural Democrats have learned that not everything is Bush's fault, and Obama is all talk and no action - all promises and nothing delivered.

There is a possibility that rural Democrats found out that Obama is like teats on a bore hog. And yes, that's probably more the truth.

TRIVIA

Actress Sandra Bullock is known for doing some really outstanding roles. While filming "Two if by Sea" in 1996, Sandra Bullock found out the hard way that she's allergic to horses.

Though she looks great as a Cowgirl, and she still loves horses, she now can't get too close to them.

Story by Tom Correa

School Security vs Half Hearted Measures

I feel sorry for those who have written to inform me that I should have understanding for Adam Lanza and those of his ilk. I feel sorry for all of you who have written saying that I should be more understanding for those in America who hate us enough to kill our children.

I'm not sorry for hating Adam Lanza who killed those children in Newtown Connecticut, but he's not alone.

I absolutely hate James Eagan Holmes who walked into that movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, with evil in mind. They are the same person.

They have no known criminal record prior to the shootings. They watch a lot of violent movies and play a lot of violent video games, and they both have absolutely no regard or respect for the lives of others.

They are no different than a radical Muslim terrorist like Major Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood. They are no different than those who hijacked planes on 9-11. And yes, they are no different then others who vehemently hate so much that they want to destroy the innocent.

I hate people like Adma Lanza, Holmes and people like Nadal Hasan, who want to kill our children and attack the innocent.Yes I really do hate people who hurt or harm the innocent - especially children.

I fell the intensity of emotion, the same hateful conviction, but unlike Lanza and his ilk, I know that evil is evil.
And yes, most of us might hate people like Lanza vehemently. But what we hate is evil, and would not do harm to good people.

So Are Guns The Enemy?

Most of us know that we should recognize the enemy for who they are.

The enemy is not the citizen who follows the rules and leads a good and honorable life. The enemy is not the man or woman who drives a car and takes their kids to school, or those who goes to church and pray. The enemy is not those who have guns to protect their families. The enemy is not a knife or a car, or any other useful piece of equipment that we also use for a multitude of well intentioned reasons.

The enemy is the selfish, the self-absorbed, the one who hates for no reason, the one who wants the innocent harmed, the one who wants to curtail our liberties, and yes - the enemy may also be the one who shifts the focus away from the true problem and over to something that fits their personal or political agenda.

Yes, while I hate Adam Lanza for killing those children, I also hate those who refuse to face the real problem, to recognize the real issue of securing our children. I hate those who will wash their hands of responsibility when Americans get hurt or killed because of their inaction.

And no, that is not my way of talking about not sending in my fellow Marines into Benghazi Libya to save those you were later killed - even though Marines were only an hour away and could have been there to do what Marines do best. Kick ass and protect others.

But then thinking about it, there is one huge similarity between what happened in Benghazi Libya and Newtown. You see, I can't help but wonder if our embassies around the world have beefed up their security since the murders that took place in Benghazi? Something that has not been done at our schools around the country.

I worked in Security for years and saw clients try to cut corners to appease insurance companies and bosses who wanted the issue looked at. I know how it is to have a problem with security, and watch people do nothing about it. And yes I've seen people who want to do the minimum to achieve the maximum protection.

People have a tendency to want the easy quick fix even to a complicated problem. And yes, just as what took place in Benghazi Libya which was a wake up call for more security at other embassies, the school shooting in Newtown Connecticut should be a wake up call.

It should be a call to get people off their ass and really do something about possible violent acts against school kids.

Do we need to move all of our children to abandoned prisons where tall fences topped with concertina wire and guard towers surround the facility? Can we protect our children, once "we get them in"? Do we want our children to go to school behind prison walls, or be made to feel like "protected prisoners"?

Should we now stress the construction of vehicle and personnel "sally ports" for visitors who come to a school?  For those who don't know what a "sally port" is, allow me to explain.

A "sally port" is a secure, controlled entryway, as that which you would enter in fortification or a prison. A guard in a protected location, today usually physically remote from the actual sally port, will have control over the middle space between the two doors. One door closes before the other will open.

The operation of the doors of the sally port, and the movement of all persons, materials and/or vehicles through the sally port, is what provides security.

This sally port guard will have the means to check the personnel, or their escorts, and/or the credentials of all those persons, materials and vehicles to be passed into the protected space through the first opened door, prior to its opening. He will then monitor the sally transit to ensure that procedures are followed before entrance can be obtained.

Sally ports are used to restrict the flow of people to one at a time so that intruders cannot pass into the classified or secure area on a cleared person's coattails.
If we assume that a fortification is needed, then can we depend on that fortification to work without security professionals to secure it? No, we can't.

Building fenced in facilities with concertina wire, guard towers, sensors, and sally ports for both vehicle and personnel entry, at all of our schools is pretty unrealistic.

So What Can We Do?

Well, how about hiring trained armed professionals to have on site in case of emergencies? What is wrong with having a "policeman or woman" on site? Why can't school districts pony up the money and pay for either armed security professionals or on site police officers from their local Police Department?

And no, I'm not talking about some under-trained armed security guard like the ones who stood by and watched as a person was assaulted in Seattle.

If you remember, in February of 2010, five security cameras underneath downtown Seattle picked up the graphic beating of a 15 year old teenage girl in Seattle's Metro bus tunnel while uniformed Seattle Metro security guards simply looked on and did nothing to help.

No, I'm talking about on site members of the local Police Department or armed security "professionals." I'm talking about having trained personnel on site who know how to use deadly force to stop an armed intruder like Adam Lanza.

National Rifle Association, vice president Wayne LaPierre has called for armed guards in schools, saying that plan is the fastest way to prevent another massacre like the massacre this month at a Connecticut elementary school.

“That’s the one thing we can do immediately that can make our children more safe,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” We’ve got to get at the real cause.”

LaPierre, the gun rights advocacy group’s chief executive officer, made his original call for armed officers in every school a week after killer Adam Lanza mercilessly murdered 26 people, include 20 first-graders, inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut.

Adam Lanza,supposedly had an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and two handguns that he had taken from his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was the legal owner of the guns and Lanza's first victim.

We know for certain that the two handguns were found in the school building. But yes, there seems to be some confusion about whether or not Lanza had the AR-15 in the school. But why?

First reports from the authorities there said that upon a search of Lanza's car - that that is where they found the AR-15 rifle. But since then, there have been all sorts of claims about the whether he had the rifle or not.

Since the talk about increasing School Security has been shifted away from the prime issue of ensuring the security of our children, and instead is now being focused on Gun Control measures, I can't help but wonder what Democrats will do if they get another ban and another school shooting takes place?

Address The Problem!

Why not look at the problem for what it really is, our schools need better security. And yes, why not tackle the problem of securing our schools right now?

Democrats and some Republican politicians are openly considering new gun-control regulations, yet we need more security.

Friends, that's the same as promising a man a empty cup when he needs a drink of water. It does nothing to solve the problem right now and in the near future.

Wayne LaPierre says limiting Second Amendment rights is not the answer. And yes, I agree.

He said that the answer to gun violence in schools is an armed security force that can protect students, made up of trained volunteers stationed at every school across the country.

"It's not just our duty to protect [our children], it's our right to protect them," LaPierre said at a news conference.

"The NRA knows there are millions of qualified active and reserved police, active and reserve military, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of qualified trained citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school."

“The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he told NBC News.
“If it’s crazy to call for armed guards in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” Mr LaPierre said Sunday.

And yes, I agree with Wayne LaPierre 100%!

We need to protect our children today - and not legislate the problem away with some sort of pipe dream that says that a supposed ban will stop violence from taking place upon our kids.

And No, Democrats Do Not Understand That Bans Only Work If Citizens Respect The Law.

Why can't they understand that criminals don't abide by the law or anything else?

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who apparently sees the Sandy Hook School Massacre as an opportunity to further her cause of banning all guns, has vowed to introduce legislation next month to reinstate a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Lawmakers have also proposed federal background checks for gun purchases, an attempt to keep weapons away from people with mental health problems.

But again, how exactly does that accomplish anything when a person like Lanza steals the guns from someone else - in this case his mother - to commit evil?

It doesn't do a damn thing to address the problem.

The Left's answer is more regulation and no action. Yes, all talk and no action.

Why is it that Democrats like Feinstein don't understand that action gives hope and builds confidence?

Democrats and Gun Control advocates slammed the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre for proposing a force of armed security guards at schools across the country as a response to the Connecticut school shooting.

One Democrat politician who was quick to criticize but is without even the slightest hint of doing something to actually help address the problem facing schools, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who actually said, "It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans."

Did you read a solution in his quote? No, I didn't either.

How about Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who said  that armed guards are only part of a possible solution and called for the ban on high-capacity magazines.

“We have to go beyond that,” she said on ABC’s "This Week.” “We cannot have an armed guard in every classroom, in every doorway.”

"Every classroom" and "every doorway"?

Where the hell did that come from?

Someone should let Amy know that we're talking about one Cop to one School - for Christ's sake, even the Chinese government did that very thing after a nutcase over there attacked 22 elementary school kids with a knife on the same day that Adam Lanza did his horrid deed.

Arming Teachers!

Yes, without using volunteer security or hiring trained security professionals to man a facility, we should instead arm and train school administrators and teachers.

And before you write me and tell me something to the effect of "What the Hell am I thinking?"

Please take this into consideration. As times change, so too does job requirements.

For example, about 35 years ago I looked into becoming a U.S. Park Ranger at Yosemite National Park. I was a little surprised at the time that the NPS (National Park Service) was looking for armed law enforcement rangers in the national park system.

It seemed just a few years before that that Rangers weren't armed. But the fact is, times changed.

So yes, maybe it is time that all of America's schools do what is done in other countries. Arm our teachers.

Now granted, that would mean drug testing and background checks. So yes, I know that many of today's teachers might have a problem getting a permit to carry a gun because they probably can't pass either.

But then again, I really believe that almost all of our teachers out there can and would if they knew that it is for the security of the children under their care and responsibility.

Banning Guns Is Not The Answer!

The answer is better security.

Since we somehow found a way to make it feasible to hire school psychologist, nutritionist, and a host of other Staff Support positions, why can't our schools cut some fat and add Security?.

Maybe some of those high paid positions at various school districts, school administrators, and high paid teachers would take a cut in pay so that schools can afford better security? Then again, maybe not.

But for those out there who think banning guns, even if there were a way to ban all guns, would be the answer - ask yourself if that really would make our society more secure?

OK, I just have to throw this in.

When I was in the private security field after leaving the Marine Corps, I had a boss who used to say, "If a law banning guns works so well, then pass a law to ban all guns - and then go ask the President of the United States if he'd like to give up his Secret Service security because there is now a ban on guns?"

Fat chance that he would. Fact is that even if there were a ban on all guns, every single one of them, America's criminal element would still do drive by shooting -  and yes, nut cases like Adam Lanza would still steal someone else's guns to do their evil.

So if we pass another gun ban, will the President feel safe enough to give up his security? You can bet he would not.

And also, think about this, why is it that the NRA's Wayne LaPierre is criticized and mocked for suggesting that we give a little bit of the security that is afforded to our politicians in Washington everyday?

And ask yourself this, is the President more important than a small child in Newtown Connecticut, or anywhere else in America?

When a couple of prevention choices of either putting trained security or arming our teachers in the schools isn't seen as worth the price of a child, we have bigger problems than guns.

Remember, there are a number of people who can replace the President in his position in the Executive Branch of our government at any given moment - yet we provide him with enormous security measures.

But really, who replaces little 6 year old Emily if she is killed because we only put out half hearted measures that didn't stop a crazy with a gun or a knife from getting into a school - or once he was inside we were helpless to fight back and did nothing?


Story by Tom Correa

I'm Sick Of Atheist's War On Christians And I'm Fighting Back!

The Christmas spirit might be alive and well around here, but I'm afraid that this year anger is also present.

Anger toward Atheists who for some reason feel entitled to try to ruin or mar Christmas for Christians in some way shape or form. And yes, I'm pretty sick of it!

I was in a store in town and heard some guy asking why Christmas was being supported by the city?

He wanted to know why the city pays its employees his tax dollars to put up lights and decorations on main street? He asked why, as a taxpayer, did he had have to pay for a Christmas tree lighting? He felt their should not be any involvement in a Christian holiday.

Since I was near enough, I asked the man, "Are you being serious or are you kidding?"

"I'm serious!" he said.

"So this your personal angst against Christmas? Are you a Muslim or Atheist? Or are you simply attacking a Christian holiday because you can in this country?"

He said he was "an Atheist and a taxpayer," and went on to tell me and a few others who gathered around him that "Christians in the town are violating the separation of church and state!"

I said "Christians violating what? The last time I checked, America accepts all religions - even those who preach hate for the United States. Besides," I asked, "where does it say anything about some supposed separation of church and state? Where does it say that a community cannot support a religious holiday?"

He said, "Haven't you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution?"

"I have, and unlike yourself - I've read it." I answered, "But the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about a separation between church and state."

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I'm no lawyer, but I can't find anywhere in the First Amendment that says there is this supposed separation between Church and State.

Fact is, in reality, I know damn well that the phrase, the metaphor of a wall, that gives a separation between church and state actually comes from the letters of Thomas Jefferson. But no, it is not in, nor does it come from, the Constitution of the United States.

Sure I know that we in reality have a separation between Church and State, this does not mean that it is OK for either government or individuals like Atheist to wage a war on Christians or any other religion.

Known as "the Establishment Clause," it solely prevents the establishing of a State run church like say the Church of England.

It does not say anything about our government not being able to publicly acknowledge God, or the existence of God, or the existence of a Supreme Being.

In fact, our government does do just that in many forms. From references to a Supreme Creator in our Declaration of Independence, to images of the Ten Commandments on the walls of the Supreme Court Of The United States, we see references to God and our Christian heritage everywhere.

The point is that our government only prohibits itself from establishing a "State Religion." It only stops our government from developing policies that encourage religious beliefs that favor one particular religion - but that's all it does.

It does not prohibit people from religious activity, it simply stops the government from choosing one religion over another.

To quote an e-mail from one of you, "By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion."

I believe that challenges could be made to allow religious symbols of all sorts from every religion on the public square.

As the same e-mail says, "The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square - far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's 'free exercise' clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views - publicly as well as privately."

Whether Atheists like it or not, the majority of taxpayers are religious people - not Atheists. The public square belongs to them just as it does to Atheist.

And yes, maybe it belongs to religious Americans even more so - that is, if for example, we consider the fact that the majority of taxpayers in the United States are Christians and pay 90% of the taxes that go to taking care of the public square which Atheists think they own.

The Atheist pitching a fit about Christians made his point in that he did not worship Christ or observe Christmas, so I said to the Atheist, "I see you're shopping in town today getting in on the Sales right?"

He looked a little bewildered but finally said, "Yes."

Just then a salesperson walked up and asked if we needed help? I looked at the store employee and asked, "these 30% OFF Sales, are they only for Christian people observing Christmas or for everyone in town?"

She laughed and smiled and said, "Everyone, why?"

"This man hates Christmas and wants to pay full price." I said pointing at the Atheist. "He doesn't want to be a hypocrite and take advantage of the Christmas Sales."

"What? Wait ..." the Atheist stammered hearing everyone laugh at him.

"Well show your conviction!" I interrupted, "Demand to pay full price, and take a stand against Christmas!"

Those around us must have thought that that was pretty funny because everyone looked at him and laughed. He then quickly turned and started walking away.

"So," I said out loud, "I guess your convictions against Christians and Christmas stop when it comes to taking advantage of the Sales Prices that our holiday brings this time of year? And how about the revenue that the town gets as well?"

He just kept walking away as quick as he could. The salesperson smiled.

And yes, whether it has to do with our religious holidays or the fact that our government has its basis in Christian ideals, I really believe that Atheists should respect the benefits that we Christians bring to our towns, our cities, or our nation.

I'm starting to see Atheist and the Left as nothing less than Adam Lanza who attacked the kids in Newtown Connecticut. They are terrorist practicing their hate against others who are not like them.

But unlike Adam Lanza, who must have obviously been an Atheist, where we may never know his rationale for attacking those who pose no harm to him -  the Left and Atheists in America attack in order to attain goals that are political and ideological in nature.

Ours is a government that is based on the ideal that sovereign authority rests with God, not the state or with man over others. Importance of governing self and family is our first level of governance. Existence of objective moral values, fixed standards, absolute truth, and the believe that life is precious. That all men are created equal. These are all part of what we celebrate at Christmas.

Could have Atheist Created America? No!

Atheist tried to create a nation, and it was Communist where religion was looked upon as an evil. It failed because of many reasons, including that it stifled the soul of its people by outlawing religion. It failed because it restricted the rights of men and women and children to believe in something more than just the  government.

Because they had no faith, how could anything work for their people? It couldn't and failed miserably. Even with threat of violence, intimidation, and coercion, it failed because they neglected to include God in their foundation as a society.

Founding Father and educator Noah Webster once said, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

Yes, whether they like it or not, Atheists hate the fact that Christ is at the heart of our founding as a nation.

A lengthy email pointed out to me, "As for your concern about retailers and atheists and others who say or don't say things to your liking, that has nothing to do with the constitutional separation of church and state, which constrains government, not individuals."

While that is true, individuals should not try to use the separation of church and state as some sort of legal basis to attack Christians and Christmas - and after all, that is the point here.



Like the man who felt he had the right to kill children in Newtown Connecticut, Atheists fell they have a right to show contempt for those they hate.
Since this whole article is my knee-jerk opinion of what I see going on this Christmas, yes I see Atheist as a Hate Group because they demonstrate their disdain, their loathing, their complete lack of respect for the rights of Christians.

What they should do is respect others, and simply leave Christians alone. I think we should respect each other.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time for them to shut up and leave us to worship as we please. We Christians are the Left's target, just as it has been for years now. We should be protected from Hate Groups on the Left.

Someone should, because if not - than more of us are going to take them to task for being the hypocrite asses that they are!

Story by Tom Correa

In Bloomberg’s Fairy Tale Gun Free Communist World

By Jan Morgan, Jan Morgan Media

12/19/2012


New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg lives in a fairy tale world … a place of make believe where dictators direct every aspect of the citizens’ lives … from what they are allowed to eat and drink, to what they can legally own, to what they can even think.

Mayor Bloomberg said over the weekend that President Obama should bypass Congress and by executive order, take action on gun control or thousands of people will die. He even named a number: 48,000 people: “If he does nothing during his second term, something like 48,000 Americans will be killed with illegal guns.”

Has he lost his mind? Why is no one looking into his mental stability?

First let’s examine some of the phrases he uses: “Bypass Congress.” “Executive Order.” It seems to me that Bloomberg’s view of America is more like a communist dictatorship rather than President of a Republic. Of course, Bloomberg knows the only way dictators can rule lives is to take away their ability to rise up and fight back against tyranny.

Mayor Bloomberg knows that in the 20th century, 170 million people were annihilated by their own governments after being disarmed. When you disarm the people, you can control the people. Gun control has never been about guns, it is about control.

Of course, Bloomberg doesn’t talk about the fact that 90 million people with over 300 million guns killed no one last year. He also doesn’t mention that over 2.5 million people used guns to save their lives last year and in most of those cases, simply pulling the gun stopped the crime.

Also notice Bloomberg uses the phrase “ILLEGAL GUNS.” In his eyes, all guns should be illegal.

It’s ridiculous to me that Bloomberg and other anti-gun fools think that eliminating the legal purchase of semi-auto firearms is going to stop criminals from committing crimes.

History proves otherwise. Making possession of illegal drugs a crime has not stopped drug trafficking and drug use in this country. Banning guns will only leave law abiding citizens defenseless or force them to hide their guns from the government, therefore becoming criminals in the eyes of the government.

Bloomberg is a very dangerous man, but even more frightening than that is the number of citizens in New York who continue to elect him to be their leader.

I say to those people as well as those socialists who voted for Obama: “Be careful what you wish for … you just may get it … and when that happens, there is no turning back.”

-- end of article.

Reprinted here with pleasure.