Do You Carry A Gun To The Movies?

On Thursday, my wife and I went to the movies for her birthday. While watching people walk into the theater, because of what took place recently in a Aurora Colorado theater, I couldn't help but wonder how many were packing a pistol under their heavy winter coats?

Since we were there to see Parental Guidance with Billy Crystal and Bette Midler, a comedy, I was sure that there wouldn't be anyone jumping up trying to imitate Billy Crystal in the same way that the murdering jerkweed in Aurora Colorado did when he tried to imitate the Joker from a Batman film and kill everyone in the theater.

As we watched the movie, I realized that this movie should be watched by everyone raising kids today. It was just that good. It was well done without vulgarity or violence. And really, it didn't need any sort of violence to present to its viewers a wonderful story about grandparents, parents, and raising kids.

Was it funny? Absolutely, but not really stupid type of funny. It was great. After the movie, as I sat through the credits, I remember thinking that this is one movie that I'd recommend to anyone to watch and learn.

And there's the point, since people can watch and learn something good and wonderful from a great movie like Parental Guidance - why does Hollywood and people who support ultra-violent films assume that people can't watch and learn how to carry out extreme acts of violence from extremely twisted films like say Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, or the latest Batman film The Dark Knight Rises?

Fact is, they can and do!

And yes, while sitting there, I could not help but wonder if there were safe movies versus un-safe movies to go to? Are there ultra-violent movies that attract ultra-violent nutcases who want to do horrific harm to others? Maybe there are?

Maybe there are people out there who love the sight of blood and gore in movies ripe with gun violence, just the same as there are those who love the horror genre with all of that blood and gore? Maybe they enjoy it for some sick reason?

Quentin Tarantino is an American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor. He has received many movie industry awards, including an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and so on.

He is someone who director Peter Bogdanovich has called "the single most influential director of his generation."

Maybe so, but what kind of influence? A good influence or bad influence? I believe a horrible influence!

In the early 1990s, he began his career as an independent filmmaker with films employing satirical subject matter and the aestheticization of violence that often results in the exhibition of neo-noir characteristics.
His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Kill Bill (2003, 2004), Inglourious Basterds (2009), and Django Unchained (2012), all incredibly ultra-violent movies bathed in buckets of blood.

The aestheticization of violence in high culture art or mass media is the depiction of or references to violence in what Indiana University film studies professor Margaret Bruder calls a "stylistically excessive," "significant and sustained way."

When violence is depicted in this fashion in films, television shows, and other media, Bruder argues that audience members are able "to connect" references from the "play of images and signs" to artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts. But remember, connect to incredibly violent artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts

In Xavier Morales' review of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 1, entitled "Beauty and violence", he calls the film "a groundbreaking aestheticization of violence."

Morales says the film, which he calls "easily one of the most violent movies ever made" is "a breathtaking landscape in which art and violence coalesce into one unforgettable aesthetic experience".

How anyone can put together the words aesthetic and violence is beyond me?

I suspect it takes a warped mind to think that extremely violent acts can be "aesthetically pleasing" to anyone.
How can any thing be aesthetic, which means relating to, or dealing with beauty, as being pleasing in appearance, as attractive, as being something appreciative, or something pleasurable to the senses, and be remorse or ultra-violent?

Aesthetics is all about emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Morales argues that "...Tarantino .. presents violence as a form of expressive art...[in which the]...violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have."

He goes on to say, "Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty...[, in which,]...like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value."

When the female sword-wielding protagonist "...skillfully slices and dices her way through...[the opposing fighters]...we get a sense that she is using them as a kind of canvas for her expression of revenge...[,]...like an artist who expresses herself through brush and paint,...[she]...expresses herself through sword and blood."

Yes, this jerkweed Morales is a Film Critic. And yes, we wonder why films that disgust everyone else passes film critics.

In my opinion, film critics like Morales who see ultra-violent films as "physically graceful" or "visually dazzling," really appear to have deep seated psychological problems that I don't see even many years of counseling helping.

According to one source, film critics analyzing violent films that seek to "aesthetically please the viewer" mainly fall into two categories.

There are those critics who see depictions of violence in film for what they are - superficial and exploitative. They argue that it leads audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thus increasing their aggression.

Then there are those film critics with their heads up their ass. Those critics view violence as a type of content, or as a theme. And believe it or not, they claim it provides "acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses."

That's right, some of the jerkweeds see no harm in ultra-violent films see them -- and see them acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses.

Imagine that for a moment, then ask yourself, how many of these jerkweed critics saw nothing wrong with the use of ultra-violence in The Dark Knight Rises? How many of them changed their minds now that they have seen the effects that that new Batman movie had on just one sick individual?

And yes, of all of the millions who see violence in the movies and in violent video games, all it takes is one to act out what he saw in a film.

The mass murderer in Aurora Colorado used a film to inspire him to violence.  The film makers knew their film was extremely violent. 

The film makers knew they crossed the line between a film being art -- and their making an actual instructional how-to film for those wanting to commit  murder on a large scale. They film  makers must have  have known that their film would be inspirational to someone who wanted to play out their anti-social impulses.

Adrian Martin argues that critics who hold violent cinema in high regard have developed a response to anti-violence advocates, "those who decry everything from Taxi Driver to Terminator 2 as dehumanising, desensitising cultural influences."

Martin claims that critics that value this sick twisted logic called "aestheticized violence" defend gory shocking depictions onscreen on the grounds that "screen violence is not real violence, and should never be confused with it."

Martin claims that their rebuttal also claims that "movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses."

It seems Adrian Martin is dead right on all accounts!

Margaret Bruder, a film studies professor at Indiana University and the author of "Aestheticizing Violence, or How To Do Things with Style" proposes that there is a distinction between aestheticized violence and the use of gore and blood in mass market action or war films.

In movies with aestheticized violence, she argues that the "standard realist modes of editing and cinematography are violated in order to spectacularize the action being played out on the screen"; directors use "quick and awkward editing", "canted framings," shock cuts, and slow motion, to emphasize the impacts of bullets or the "spurting of blood."

But of course, according to Hollywood, none of that incites or inspires others to violence. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Hollywood mega-star and director Quentin Tarantino said that shootings happen because of guns and mental health and not violent movies.

But how can that be the case since the creep who shot all of those innocent people at the theater in Aurora Colorado got the very idea to do what he did directly from an extremely violent movie?

Quentin Tarantino, the director of Pulp Fiction and the recent box office hit Django Unchained, has once again spoken out against accusations that film violence could be responsible for massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.

Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air," Tarantino said "I think it's disrespectful to their memory actually, the memory of the people who died, to talk about movies," Tarantino said of the 26 shooting victims.

"It's totally disrespectful to their memory," he said, before trying to pass off the use of violence in the movies as a small issue - asserting that "obviously, the issue is gun control and mental health."

The tense and often excruciatingly awkward exchange on the popular radio left the director feeling "really annoyed." Tarantino seemed surprised when the genial conversation suddenly turned to the serious subject of violence in movies.

When pressed on whether the tragedy, which claimed the lives of twenty children and six adults, has made movie violence "less fun."

"So, I just have to ask you, is it any less fun after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? Do you ever go through a period where you lose your taste for movie violence? And what do you like about that?" Gross asked.

"What do I like about it?" Tarantino asked with surprise, before laughing nervously. "It's fun."

Gross asked: "Are there times when it is just not a fun movie experience for you, either to be making it that way or to be in the audience?"

"Not for me," Tarantino said flatly. Then added, "Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe. Because they have nothing to do with each other."

"You sound annoyed?" Gross responded.

Tarantino wrapped up the subject with his thoughts on movies and violence by defending his influence on murdering rampages this way: "I've been asked this question for 20 years, About the effects of violence in movies relating to violence in real life. And my answer is the same as 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota."

Tarantino added that violence in movies does not affect violence in society, saying, "Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health." 

So according to Tarantino, he says that tragedies like Sandy Hook are all about gun control and mental health -- and not movies or video games violence. Yes, like most of you, I think he's full of shit.

And we're not alone. In fact, even the star of his new movie Django Unchained, Jamie Foxx feels differently than he does.

"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in a recent interview. "It does."
Back in late August of 2012, another of many reports came out to dispute creeps like Tarantino. The report agrees with Jamie Foxx and others. It found that violent images in movies, TV or computer games can act as triggers for aggression.

After that took place, an international panel concluded that media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts and feelings.

"Violent TV, films and video games do increase aggression," that's from an international panel of experts who are warning parents to keep an eye on what their children are watching saying, "Ratings are not substitutes for parents watching, playing, or listening to the media their children use."

The report for the The International Society for Research on Aggression (IRSA) concluded that that evidence shows that the consumption of media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts or feelings already stored.

The panel is only one of many groups who study violence, and have concluded that exposure to violent images in different media, such as movies and video games, increases the relative risk of aggression. The panel also warn parents that a ratings system is no substitute for the watchful eye of a parent.

Grand Theft Auto IV was a critically-acclaimed 18-rated game, but there were concerns about younger players emulating the violence they saw on-screen.

The IRSA appointed the International Media Violence Commission in December of 2011. In their report, the commission concluded that aside from being sources of imitation, violent images such as scenes in movies, games or even pictures in comic books -- act as triggers for activating aggressive thoughts and feelings already stored in memory.

If these aggressive thoughts and feelings are activated over and over again because of repeated exposure to media violence, they become chronically accessible, and therefore more likely to influence behaviour.

The commission concluded, "One may also become more vigilant for hostility and aggression in the world, and therefore, begin to feel some ambiguous actions by others (such as being bumped in a crowded room) are deliberate acts of provocation."

The researchers wrote, "Parents can also set limits on screen use, and should discuss media content with their children to promote critical thinking when viewing. Schools may help parents by teaching students from an early age to be critical consumers of the media and that, just like food, the ‘you are what you eat' principle applies to healthy media consumption."

Research shows that the "you are what you eat" principle applies to violent film consumption. If people are exposed to violence, then some may be prone to act out what they see.

My wife and I sat through the previews of the upcoming films, I couldn't help but shake my head at how many new films had so much violence -- even the animation fims have a lot of violence.

Hollywood's desire to supposedly make everything more "authentic and real" should not be mistaken for "authentically real life violence." Fact is, Hollywood violence is sensationalized and exaggerated.

Fact is, while Directors like Tarantino who have a blood lust try to make violence somehow pleasing, Hollywood's depictions of violent acts are not supposed to be instructional -- yet they are as they are in fact reenacted.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets.

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., said.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said "people on the far-right, on the NRA front ... they go to bed at night ... afraid somebody's going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests."

On CNN, host Piers Morgan called Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt "an unbelievably stupid man."

Yet, there's another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize, and that's Hollywood. As we've discussed here, Hollywood bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence because they incite violence.

"Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does," Parents Television Council's Dan Isett said.

"What happened in Newtown is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn't take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids."

Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino typifies Hollywood's position on the issue -- minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities.

James Holmes who is in jail is accused of going on a shooting spree during a midnight screening of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises on July 20, 2012, at a movie complex in Aurora Colorado. He faces 152 charges.

He was inspired to to his horrible act by a horribly violent film. He learned how to do the deed from Hollywood and he emulated the scene from the film to do what he did. Thank you Hollywood!

But, what does Tarantino say about that and the violence in his latest film Django Unlimited?

"I just think, you know, there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers," Tarantino said.

"Is that a question you're tired of?" asked a reporter.

"Yeah, I'm really tired. It's a western. Give me a break." that was what Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood's impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, Django Unchained.

Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of extreme violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say.
Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Democrats in Congress do not change the current system of "self regulation" that labels content violent or not.

Not unlike any big political action organization, Democrat in Congress fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies.

After all, Hollywood supports Democrats even if the candidate were known for fact to be a convicted Pedophile and devout Communist. From Hollywood, millions of dollars of campaign contribution roll in.

Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democrati politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced extremely violent films.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, MPAA CEO former Democrat Senator Chris Dodd released this statement: "Those of us in the motion picture and television industry want to do our part to help America heal. We stand ready to be part of the national conversation."

"Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem," said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for Reelchange.net.

"Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo," Isett said.

Since 1998, America's five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA in the same time period according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA.

The difference is that the NRA is fighting to keep a Constitutional Right shared by all Americans -- while the MPAA lobbys to keep violent prominent in films and videos.

The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Democrats who controlled Congress for the most part since 1925 off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.

Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie "Dark Knight,." where dozens died in the movie, often graphically, yet it got a PG-13 rating.

Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games - a $11 billion a year business. But, that too was shot down.

"It's pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence," Gittell said.

"If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority."

As stated previously, at a press conference held at a Washington, DC, hotel last month, the National Rifle Association's leadership responded to the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School by decrying the impact of violent movies on our culture.

During his speech at Washington DC's Willard Hotel, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre sought to put the blame where it should be and called the film industry "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people," specifically highlighting "the blood-soaked slasher films like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers that are aired like propaganda loops."

The  pro-gun control media immediately dismissed his comments and openly worked to discredit the notion that violent movies encourage violent behavior. In fact, pro-gun control groups even stooped to pointing to an NRA museum that displays movie prop guns of all sorts.

Believe it or not, those wanting to ban guns are reaching new lows as they try to link the display of "non-firing" and "blank-firing" guns to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Since 2010, the NRA National Firearms Museum has hosted "Hollywood Guns," an exhibit featuring firearms made famous in all sorts of movies and television shows from movies such as old 1930s westerns and gangster movies to modern movies like Dirty Harry and Die Hard and Quigley Down Under. And yes, from 1950s television Westerns to present day cop shows.

According to NRA magazine American Rifleman, "If you love guns or you love movies, or still luckier you love guns and movies, this is a trip you cannot miss."

In a promotional video for the museum, senior curator Phil Schreier says, "We encourage you to come by and visit this sequel and come see a true blockbuster here in Fairfax, where all the stars of the silver screen have descended into these galleries and are represented by some of the firearms that we've fallen in love with in our youth and our adulthood, wishing that we too could be like our matinee idols."
Somehow anti-gun groups see that as a bad thing. For me, I'd love to see the pistols that stars like Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others carried. Blank-firing or Non-gun, they would be interesting see.

I'd love to see the guns used when making The Sands Of Iwo Jima with John Wayne, or the gun that Humphrey Bogart used to gun down Edward G. Robinson in Key Largo.

I was brought up on John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Tim Holt, Hopalong Cassidy westerns were there was a always some gunplay, but back in those days the gun play was secondary to the story of good versus evil.

The small use of violence in movies was never the focus of the movie as it is today. And yes, in many cases depending which old movies you talk about from back then, some didn't even show any blood at all when someone was shot.

It was always a case of the act lending to the story, and not the other way around like movies these days. The shot that killed the bad guy was not in vivid color spurting out and splattering everywhere, it was usually done without focus on the killing - but instead more on what took us to that point in the movie.
Yes, those old movies were extremely mild in comparison to today's blood lust classics.

My favorite Western movie has only one person being shot dead in the entire movie. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, an outlaw named Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin) is out of control.

A dude by the name of Ransom "Ranse" Stoddard (played by James Stewart), someone from the East who knows nothing about the ways of the West or guns, finally accepts a challenge to a duel despite his complete lack of skills.

In the movie, Stoddard tries and supposedly miraculously kills Valance with one shot to the surprise of everyone, including himself. In reality, a local Cowboy Tom Doniphon, ( played by John Wayne, was asked to protect him and shot Valance from a dark ally.

The Cowboy congratulates the Dude on his success, and notices how his girl Hallie, played by Vera Miles, is lovingly caring for the Dude's wounds. Later, when the Dude Stoddard is feeling remorse over killing the outlaw -- the Cowboy tells him what he did.

Doniphon tells Stoddard that he (Doniphon) hid across the street and shot and killed Valance in cold blood, and that it was not Stoddard who killed Valance in self-defense. Stoddard asks him why he shot Valance. Doniphon tells him that he did it for Hallie.

In my favorite movie of all time, Casablanca, the only person shot dead was the evil Nazi officer.

And yes, American Humphrey Bogart warned Major Strasser twice before he left him no choice but to shoot. If he hadn't shot him, French patriot Victor Laszlo and his wife Ingrid Bergman couldn't have escaped Casablanca on a plane.

That was only the one shot in the movie that showed anyone getting hit. No big bucket of blood splatter in a 2 minute slow motion sequence. Bogart fires the shot and the n azi falls down dead.

Again, like in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance where Valance  falls down dead, in Casablanca the bad guy Major Strasser just falls down dead.

In both examples, those shot were not the focus of the story. The focus was on the storyline. They certainly, above all else, did not use huge blood splattering scenes in some sick twisted sense of logic to be aesthetically pleasing violence.

As I sat through the credits of the movie, I thought how well made the movie Parental Guidance really was. And yes, I thought to myself, I don't see today's ultra-violent films surviving the test of time.

I see them as being what they are, just trashy movies filled with gratuitous violence. Just violence for the sake of being violent. Just violence depicted without need or reason. And for the part, totally unrealistic with the sole purpose of glorifying violent acts and inciting others to violence.

Yes, I can't help but wonder how many go to see those extremely violent movies because they love it? And really, I can't help but wonder how many are like James Holmes when it comes to wanting to reenact such horribly violent films? How many are truly caught up in some movie director's sick sense of reality?
I'm sorry to say that I really believe that there are more out there like the nutcase who dressed himself like the Joker and tried to kill everyone in a theater in Aurora Colorado.

If there is one, than we can be fairly certian that there is at least one more like him. And yes, he is probably out there.

I  believe that he will show up one day to play out his fantasy to be just like some murderous character in a movie. He will try to emulate a scene he saw in a movie -- and probably want to be famous. He too will find his moment when to terrorize and be like someone depicted in a horrible film that few will remember.

That's why I believe that there are people who are now going to the movies armed. And yes. because of that concern I know a few for certain just because of the reasons I've stated.

Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Gun Control, Al Gore Sells Out To Radical Muslims, Unions Want It All, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Releasing Names Of Gun Permit Holders Endangers Public, says New York County Clerk

Americans have a new hero today. His name is Dennis Sant. He is a man who stood up and said, no, this is not right.

A New York county clerk justified his refusal to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders to the same newspaper who published the names of other gun owners in another country.

He said, "it would give stalkers and thieves a convenient roadmap to target potential victims -- and determine whether they have a gun."

"This certainly puts my public in danger," Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.

The Journal News, which serves New York City's northern suburbs, created citizen outrage last month when it published clickable online maps with the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties.

The Journal News does not care if a citizen's safety becomes jeopardized, And it works either way, the Journal News handed robbers and burglars a detailed map on which houses they could hit and find guns, or the houses of those now known to be defenseless.

When the newspaper requested the same information from Putnam, Dennis Sant initially said the county needed more time to fulfill the request.

Dennis Sant balked entirely this week, saying the law gives him the prerogative to refuse to release public information if it endangers the public.

Judges and police officers could be targeted by the people they put behind bars, he said. People with orders of protection have expressed concern to him about would-be attackers finding them through the database.

And yes, there are women who are thought to be armed so to protect themselves and their children. If this data is released, it may expose the truth that they may be unarmed to violent former husbands and boyfriends who would love to find out such information so that they could go and do harm upon those women and children.

Yes, Dennis Sant has become one of my heroes!

While anyone can come into his office and file the necessary paperwork to request information on individual permits, Sant said the difference is that the Journal News plans to publish the information in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, instantaneously.

"First of all, it tells criminals who doesn't have a gun," he said. "It gives a burglar or it gives a thief a map."

The Journal News' database and accompanying story, "The Gun Owner Next Door," was supposedly published as part of the newspaper's coverage following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

But that doesn't pass the sniff test, it smells too fishy. After all, they are a paper known to have an anti-gun agenda. And honestly, if they are so concerned about public safety - why have they never listed known Child Molesters and Convicted Rapists? Because that doesn't fit their agenda!

Some readers say the paper unfairly stigmatized gun owners, branding them in the same way as if they were outlaws and law violators or some sort of sex offenders that the community needed to be warned about.

The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.

I'm hoping they post armed guards at their homes as well.

Maybe those who work for the Journal News now have to hire guards to escort their children to school or their families to work or the market? Maybe the Journal News employees who thought it was OK to target law abiding citizens has to now protect their homes from vandals or arsonists? Maybe they now understand how it is to live in harms way?

Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson did not respond to several requests for comment Thursday but has issued statements previously standing behind the newspaper's project and maintaining residents have a right to see such public information.

Diane Kennedy, president of the New York News Publishers Association, said she reached out to Hasson offering support. Imagine that!

Janet Hasson puts folks in the community in danger, and Diane Kennedy who is the president of the New York News Publishers Association says she is reaching out to Hasson to offer her support.


She said editors may debate whether the Journal News should have published the database, but they fully backed the newspaper's right to access public records under New York's Freedom of Information Law. If the issue went to court, she said, member newspapers would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Journal News.

"It's really clear cut," Kennedy said. "The existing law doesn't have exemptions in it. It says this information is subject to FOIL."

No surprise to anyone, another newspaper sides with Hasson and Kennedy, Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., said : "There is a broad consensus that the kind of resistance to the FOIL application that we're seeing in Putnam County is intolerable."

My friends, conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms, principles and rules, understanding what is legal may not be what is right.


I guess this is just more proof that those without conscience will support others of the same ilk.

And yes, newspapers wonder why they are dieing across the nation in huge numbers. With their circulation is at an all time low, most Americans see newspapers as out of touch or arrogant.

The Journal News proves they are definitely out of touch with the desires of their community. And yes, all their community wants from a newspaper is to be informed  - not be an informer for criminals and other crazies who would do harm simply because they now have an address they didn't have before.

People are fed up with newspapers forcing their leftist ideology on their customers. People do not see newspapers as a guardian of freedom fighting for the people, but instead as an abuser who is in fact fighting against the best interest of the people.

The denial of similar information to The Wall Street Journal by New York City's police commissioner led to a case that in 1981 was decided in favor of the newspaper.

But Dennis Sant  says that times have changed.

"The technology today is so different," he said. "I'm looking forward to the opportunity of bringing to the magistrates that this is not 30 years ago."

Yes, Dennis Sant is a real American hero for taking a stand against what is not right. He is a hero for standing up to a big money politically connected newspaper. He is a hero for doing what is right for his county!

SECOND SHOT!

FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles


January 3rd, 2013
Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14th, Democrats are making reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" a major priority for the 113th Congress.

This is ddespite factsthat show relatively few murders are committed with rifles such as the ones that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles of any sort, reports Breitbart.

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records.

In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.”

Yet, Democrats want to go after rifles - especially black rifles they term assault rifles.

Technically, an assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or 3 round burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Assault rifle should not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard military service rifles in most modern militaries around the world. The term, assault weapons, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle.

They are not the same because the military style assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, while the assault weapon only cosmetically looks like an assault rifle.

Think of it like this President Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States and a great leader.

There are many reasons he was a great leader, but mostly because he lifted the nation's spirit and instilled pride in Americans. Comparing President Reagan to President Obama is like comparing a real leader to a wannabe who only looks the part.

One writer wrote about the 1994 gun ban this way, "Supporters of the assault weapons ban use emotion to convince the public that there are many rapid-fire weapons easily accessible to dangerous persons who use them frequently to kill and wound large numbers of people. Factual evidence does not support this claim."

"Those who oppose this ban should promote greater exposure for people who use firearms of all kinds for self-defense. Everyone understands and can empathize with the person who used a firearm, especially a semi- automatic military gun, to defend against looters during riots, hurricanes, and other disasters, or to defend one's home against invasion by criminals."

This all holds true today. Like back in 1195, studies today reveal similar findings in that only a small number of crimes involve the use of weapons classified as "assault weapons."

But again, the problem is being sidestepped as no one is focusing on the root cause - and instead are focused only the effect.

The cause is violent movies like the Dark Knight Rises which implanted the idea of a mass murder in a theater in the mind of the Aurora Colorado killer. He saw it done in that movie and decided to recreate it.

The murderer in Newtown Connecticut, was known to have spend an enormous amount of time playing ultra-violent video games. And yes, I can't help but wonder about the connection there?

If Democrats want something to ban, go after the root cause of the problem - and ban extremely violent movies and video games that are the inspiration for such acts of horror.
  THIRD SHOT!   Unions look for benefits from Obama re-election
Going into his second term, President Obama may find himself more beholden than ever to America's labor unions, even as their membership continues to decline -- lately, to just 11.8 percent of the workforce.

The unions, as in 2008, contributed heavily in manpower and money to Obama's election this year. The president, in return, has made a point of supporting them -- like with his post-election visit to the Daimler Diesel Plant in Dearborn, Mich., on Dec. 10.

"You only have to look to Michigan where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America," Obama said.

But Obama could be going against the legislative tide. The president's dilemma was demonstrated in the fact that a day after that visit, the union stronghold of Michigan became the 24th state to pass a right-to-work law preventing unions from demanding dues from workers.

Hampered in the states by right-to-work momentum -- and in Washington by a divided Congress, and abroad by low-cost competition -- the unions may see limited options on the part of the president to reward them. But they still expect some payback.

"There are things a president can do alone, and we will be expecting that leadership from President Obama," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the immediate aftermath of Obama's re-election victory.

Trumka may have been referencing the Obama administration's enthusiasm for new federal regulations and executive orders, some of which have benefited unions and penalized non-union employers.

More than 5,700 new regulations have been posted in the last 90 days alone.

FOURTH SHOT!

Whoever says Unions are for American Workers is dead wrong!

Union leaders like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have also been exploring other options that address the fundamental realities of globalization that have decimated U.S. manufacturing.

"The way to do it, from a union's perspective, is to raise those workers' pay around the world," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.

U.S. unions are trying to do just that, laying the groundwork, as Trumka said last year, "to protect workers from Detroit to Juarez and Shanghai to Bogota."

Getting foreign governments and multi-national corporations to agree is, admittedly, a long-term strategy for labor organizers. But as standards of living increase in those third world countries, union organizers hope so too will workers' thirst for greater protections.

The most recent high-profile union fight has involved dockworkers all along the East and Gulf coasts.

They had threatened a strike at 14 ports stretching from Massachusetts to Texas - but a 30-day contract extension agreed to by dockworkers, shippers and port operators last Friday temporarily averted the shut-down.

Mediators have said the major sticking point -- over fees paid to longshoremen based upon the weight of each individual container -- has largely been resolved. But they would not describe how it was resolved, as negotiations continue.

FIFTH SHOT!

Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as pollutant in Virginia

Virginia officials scored a key victory Thursday in their battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over what EPA critics describe as a land takeover.

U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.

O'Grady sided with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which challenged EPA's stormwater restrictions

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says the ruling could ultimately save Virginia taxpayers more than $300 million.

The EPA, citing an abundance of stormwater runoff, had proposed a plan that Virginia officials said could cost homeowners and businesses their private property.

The EPA contended that water itself can be regulated as a pollutant if there's too much of it. Imagine that would you. The EPA contends that rain water can be regulated as a pollutant if they feel there is too much of it.

Some would call this one stupid statement, and they'd be right. But also, others would call this a lame ass way of grabbing power - and yes, they'd be right as well.

The EPA says heavy runoff is having a negative impact on Accotink Creek and that it has the regulatory authority to remedy the situation - even though it is not their jurisdiction.
Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, argued what the EPA has proposed is "illegal," and he's not alone in the fight.

As surprising as it may be, Ken Cuccinelli was joined in the lawsuit against the federal agency by the Democrat-controlled Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

In legal filings, the EPA says that its plan is "in harmony with the broader purposes" of the Clean Water Act, including "reducing the water quality impacts of stormwater."

Federal Judge O'Grady did not agree, saying,  "EPA may not regulate something over which it has no statutorily granted power... as a proxy for something over which it is granted power."

He continued, "If the sediment levels in Accotink Creek have become dangerously high, what better way to address the problem than by limiting the amount of sediment permitted in the creek?"

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

"EPA was literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant," noted Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

"This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement. And it was likely to do more harm than good, as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."

I'm not going to lie, it is very nice to see the EPA get put in their place. They are a rogue federal agency with way too much authority. The EPA is directly responsible for farmers losing farms, ranchers losing herds, agriculture progress being stifled, and American manufacturing disappearing. 

LAST SHOT!

Al Gore Sells His TV Channel To Radical Muslim Anti-American Al-Jazeera

Well, Glenn Beck tried to buy it but Al Gore supposedly said no because Beck is a Conservative.

And you know Al Gore? He was once the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away as they say.

He's also the guy who pulled one of the biggest scams on the American people - and in fact, some say the entire world with his Global Warming hoax.

If you don't remember that, how about the fact that he contested the 2000 Presidential Election when he loss to George W.Bush? Yeah that's him!

Mister Leftist, our little Al Gore, the man who would be King if he could - but couldn't get 'er done.

Well, now Al Gore has sold his enemic television channel to a group of radical Muslims who own Al-Jazeera. The same Al-Jazeer who supported our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same guys you proclaimed the 9-11 terrorists as heroes to Muslims everywhere.

Their Pan-Arab news channel has struggled to win space on American cable television. But now, thanks to Al Gore, they have now acquired Current TV - boosting Al-Jazeer's reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million American homes.

With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that co-founder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.

The former vice president confirmed the sale on Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."

In other words, Muslim Propaganda!

The Wall Street Journal said that Al-Jazeera  "became famous in the U.S. about a decade ago when its Arabic-language outlet aired videos of Usama bin Laden in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks."

The network is based in Qatar, an oil producing country, and is state-funded.

Back in 2006, Al Jazeera talk show host (and former CNN International journalist) Riz Kahn wouldn’t call either Hamas or Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" during an interview. “I’m not one to judge,” Kahn said.

In 2008, the network celebrated the birthday of a released terrorist who had shot and killed one Israeli and then beat to death a 4-year-old Israeli girl.

The network doesn’t call out Arabs for crimes either. In 2011, even liberal Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart criticized the network for ignoring the attack in Egypt on CBS News reporter Lara Logan.

But lefties love Al Jazeera. The network gained a bigger name for itself covering Arab Spring and is also the outlet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “real news” back in 2011.

The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera's reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English.

Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a new channel called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists.

Al-Jazeera spokesman Stan Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.

Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.

"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.

Previous to Al-Jazeera's purchase, Current TV was in 60 million American homes.

In 2010, the network's managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a "very aggressive hostility" from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network.

Now before you write and ask if I made that up, please don't. I can't help it if jerkweed liberals are still blaming Bush years after he left office. That is a quote from the news article reporting this.

Al-Jazeera is anti-American. Anyone who has doubts should contact Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington. He said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.

Current TV was political talk television with a liberal bent. Among the ultra-leftist who worked there was Al Gore who worked on-air as an analyst during its recent election night coverage.

Former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Cenk Uygur are currently its lead personalities. Current signed Keith Olbermann to be its top host in 2011 but his tenure lasted less than a year before it ended in bad blood on both sides.

Current has largely been outflanked by ultra-left MSNBC in its effort be a super liberal alternative to the leading cable news network, Fox News Channel.

The sale of Current TV and the taxes paid on that say are another issue that's being talked about. It appears that founder Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, is expected to post $114 million in revenue in 2013, according to research firm SNL Kagan.

Some reports have it that Al Gore was or is right now trying to get out of paying the steep taxes incurred by delaying the sale date. Imagine that.

A liberal not wanting to pay taxes? I thought they love paying taxes.

I guess they only want you to pay taxes, while they try to weasel out of it.


Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Details Of Fiscal Cliff Fix, Republican Lawmakers Don't Want Obama Raise, And More!

FIRST SHOT!  

Details Of Fiscal Cliff Fix Now Available As Fiscal Crisis Bill Is Passed By Congress

January 02, 2013

Specifics details of a bill Congress passed Tuesday aimed at averting widespread tax increases and budget cuts scheduled to take effect today are now somewhat available.

Bottom line: The measure should raise taxes by about $600 billion over 10 years compared with tax policies that were due to expire at midnight Monday.

It will also delay for two months across-the-board cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon and numerous domestic agencies.

The House and Senate passed the bill on Tuesday and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Some of the details include:

• Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples.

Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.

• Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.

• Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

• Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000.

The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.

• Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and an up-to-$2,500 tax credit for college tuition.

Also extends for one year accelerated "bonus" depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.

• Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.

• Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year.

The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.

• Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.

• Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week.

Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rule changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

SECOND SHOT!

Republican Lawmakers Don't Want Obama Pay Raise For Congress

Alaska's senators are joining a growing group of lawmakers urging President Obama to rescind a recent executive order granting pay increases to Congress and other federal officials, saying the move doesn't jibe with the country's debt crisis. 

Sen. Mark Begich said on his Facebook page that if the American people don't get an automatic pay raise then neither should members of Congress.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Monday she was "stunned" when she heard lawmakers would be getting a bump in pay.

"We haven't been able to produce a budget in three years," she said. "The last thing this Congress needs right now is a pay increase."

Obama signed an executive order last week that will lift a ban on pay freezes for federal employees.

Rank-and-file members of Congress would all see a $900 bump next year -- up from $174,000.

Congressional leaders will receive a slightly higher raise, with the House speaker receiving a $1,100 salary increase to $224,600. The top two Senate leaders will see pay rise $1,000, to $194,400.

Vice President Biden, meanwhile, will see his pay increase from $225,521 last year to $231,900 after his raise goes into effect March 27, 2013.

But the pat on the back came as a surprise to some, given the lack of progress all year toward a deal to head off the looming fiscal crisis -- which includes $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts. Even if that is resolved, Washington has still done relatively little to address the more than $16 trillion debt.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., introduced legislation Monday that would rescind the pay raises.

“I am calling on my colleagues in the House and Senate to rescind President Obama’s executive order that gives members of Congress a pay raise," she said in a statement. "This executive order was not requested by Congress and we should reject it. We have a spending problem in our country and we should be looking for areas to cut spending. At a time when families across the country are cutting back we should not increase government spending and add to the debt burden by giving members of Congress a pay raise. We need to begin with ourselves and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.”

Republican Sen. Rob Portman said now is not the time for bigger salaries in Washington - at least not until the country can deal aggressively with its debt and deficit problems.

"At a time when our country is facing record debt and trillion-dollar deficits, the last thing Washington should do is reward itself with a pay increase," the Ohio senator said. "I am calling on President Obama to withdraw his recent executive order raising federal salaries -- including for members of Congress. Until a long-term deficit reduction agreement is reached, we should not consider increasing the pay for Congress."

Obama also OK'd raises for circuit and district court judges.

And no, I don't know why he thinks this sort of bullshit is OK.

It's as if he just doesn't care if his actions are proper or not. And if he does care, well then I agree with those who wonder if he simply has his head up his ass and doesn't know better? 

Maybe someone should tell him that it's just not right to raise taxes on some Americans while you give raises to others - especially during a time when the nation is having financial difficulties!

THIRD SHOT!

Connecticut Lawyer Withdraws $100 Million Lawsuit Over Sandy Hook Massacre

On December 29th, it was reported that a lawyer in Newtown Connecticut decided to try to sue Connecticut for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old Newtown school shooting survivor who heard violence over the school's intercom system. 

The lawyer said the potential claim was about improving school security, not money. But if that's the case, and it really isn't about money, many were asking why sue for $100 Million? 

"It's about living in a world that's safe," New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky told The Associated Press on Saturday. "The answer is about protecting the kids."

Pinsky asked this week to sue the state, which has immunity against most lawsuits unless it gives a party permission to go forward with a claim.


Pinksy's client, whom he calls "Jill Doe" in the claim, sustained "emotional and psychological trauma and injury" on December 14th after maniac Adam Lanza got into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 children and six adults inside.

The child heard "conversations, gunfire and screaming" over Sandy Hook's intercom after someone in the office apparently switched on the system, according to the claim. Pinsky said Saturday he didn't know whether his client saw anyone die.

The state Board of Education, Department of Education and state education commissioner failed to protect the child "from foreseeable harm," including by failing to provide a safe school setting, the filing said.

It also said the parties failed to review and carefully scrutinize annual strategic school profile reports from the local school district and Sandy Hook Elementary as well as "other submissions with respect to student safety and emergency response planning and protocol."

It says the parties also failed to require the school and local Board of Education to formulate and implement an effective student safety emergency response plan.

Pinsky said Saturday he didn't want to reveal more about the 6-year-old or details about her experience during the shooting because of privacy concerns.

The attorney said he hasn't gotten a reply from the state yet. The Hartford Courant first reported the filing.

Well, that was a few days ago, now the lawyer has decided to drop the suit.

It was reported on January 1st, that the same Connecticut attorney seeking to sue the state for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor of the Newtown school massacre has now withdrawn the claim - at least for now.

The Stamford Advocate reports that Irving Pinsky withdrew the lawsuit but says he might refile.

He says he received new evidence on security at Sandy Hook Elementary School and is reviewing it.

Pinsky last week asked to sue the state, saying his client suffered "emotional and psychological trauma and injury" during the shooting rampage that killed 20 children and six adults.

He says state officials failed to prevent his client from foreseeable harm.

The state attorney general differs with Pinsky and said on Monday that there appears to be no basis to support the suit or the state's liability.

I can't help but wonder if the Connecticut attorney general's statement helped change Pinsky's mind about sueing?

Besides, I would think that there is some other way to sue the state to ensure your client's safety without bankrupting the state. That is, if that really was his intentions?

FOUTH SHOT!

Obama makes passing gun control measures a priority for 2013

On Sunday, President Obama again sworn up and down that he was going to make something a priority.

This time he pledged to make gun control a top priority in his second term and vowed to put his “full weight” behind such legislation.

I can't help but wonder if he only knows a few lines and that's it. "Top priority" and "full weight" seems to be his sellignpoints. He said it during the BP spill, to Hurricane Sandy survivors, to this and to that. Promise here, promise there, all just words.

Democrat lawmakers have called for immediate action in the aftermath of the December 14th shootings in which 20 first-graders were killed inside that Connecticut elementary school.

While Obama said the same old line about how he would not prejudge recommendations, he did say that he was skeptical about the only answer being to put armed guards in schools as the National Rifle Association has suggested.

The president instead vowed to rally Americans around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines.

Of course, it is impossible to do what he is saying without cracking down on criminals. His hometown of Chicago is like a war zone - and it has nothing to do with assault weapons.

In fact, Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the nation  -- all while it has the toughest gun control laws in the country.

That fact is lost on Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored legislation that banned assault-style weapons from 1994 to 2004.

She immediately jumped on the shooting in Connecticut to push her agenda saying immediately after the tragedy at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that she would introduce similar legislation early this year. A ban she said which would include bans on the high-capacity magazines.

Feinstein declined to say on “Fox News Sunday” when she would introduce new legislation, but said it would essentially “strengthen” the 1994 bill.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said he supports armed guards over more gun control and would oppose Feinstein’s legislation

“You can't take every sharp object out of the reach of people like this,” the South Carolina senator told Fox. “I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun. If you had armed security, with better rules of engagement, that, to me, is a better way to deal with the situation.”

Not missing an opportunity to cash in on the tragedy, the massacre immediately prompted calls for greater gun controls from anti-gun groups.

Of course they won't answer my small question, If we legalized a ban of all guns in America, would the President feel safe enough to get rid of his Secret Service security team?

The answer is no because he knows damn well that it's not guns - but people who commit crimes. And yes, while he has all sorts of security, he and other Democrats blasted the NRA as horrible because they rightfully argued that schools should have armed guards for protection - no different than banks or hotels or even our lawmakers in Washington!

And really, I really want to know why schools can't have armed guards? Some schools already have them and their crimes and violence are down to almost nothing compared to schools that don't have guards.

Besides, aren't our children as important as the President and lawmakers who we spend Millions of dollars on to protect?

As for another ban, some gun enthusiasts have rushed to buy semiautomatic rifles because they rightfully fear that sales may soon be restricted.

The president also said Sunday that he intends to press the gun issues with the public.

Instead of focusing on the pain of the parents and families, right after the massacre President Obama again focused in on himself, saying, "This is something that - you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

To show how out of touch the White House truly is, a member of the president's cabinet said Sunday that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment right to bear arms and a recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.

And no, I don't know if he's too stupid to know that it's not about hunting - but about our rights to defend ourselves.

Vilsack is completely disregarding the soaring gun sales, and refuses to believe what is right in front of his eyes. He refuses to acknowledge that it is the criminal and not the mode in which they perpetrate their crime. It is not guns, it's criminals!

Instead of recognizing the jump in gun sales, he believes that the Newtown shooting has changed the way people see the issue the government trying to take away our guns.

Unbelievably, Vilsack said on CNN, "I really believe that this is a different circumstance and a different situation and I think the president believes it as well, that this is going to be sustained convention."

Obama also listed deficit reduction and immigration as top 2013 priorities.

As much as I would love to think the opposite, I really believe that Obama will say that his "priority" is whatever takes place at the moment.

He seems to have a desire to seize the opportunity to grab a microphone and make something or other the priority of his administration in the same way a kid promises to clean his room.

For years ago Obama said the he would make it a priority of his administration to go through the Federal Budget line by line and weed out the waste and fraud. He has not even dealt with a budget since entering office.

He said he would make it a priority to unite America, he said he would make jobs his priority, he said he would make support and tax relief for the middle class and business owners priorities.

Allow me to echo some advice to the president, if you really want to make the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School a "top priority" and not just go after guns, then do it right and address the real problem.

As a doctor once said, go after the illness instead of just a single cough here and there. Go after what inspires and encourages these maniacs to do such things. Go after finding out way they think its OK to do such horrible acts of inhumanity.

Go after the movie industry, television violence, and extremely violent video games. Go after the Department of Education and find out why we're not teaching morality anymore. Find out why schools are not teaching our kids that certain behaviors are not right - and in fact wrong!

If Obama wants to make something real his "top priority" regarding what took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School that day, then he should make it his "top priority" and put the "full weight" of the federal government behind an effort to find out how we as a society can deter that which inspires and encourages these senseless horrible acts of violence.

A gun cannot jump off a table and go to a school or anywhere else if someone does not want to pick it up and use it. Whether its used to defend, as it is countless times a day that never makes the newspapers, or if it used by those inspired by violent Hollywood movies like the jerkweed in Aurora Colorado or encouraged by violent video games like the jerkweed in Newtown Connecticut, the federal government should make it a priority to address what inspires nutcases to go out and do these sorts of acts.

It is so easy to blame the availability of guns. It is so easy to go after the same old political target.

If Obama really wants to help stop this sort of crap from happening in the future, then he should make it his "priority" to censor the movie industry and monitor what is being released in video games to our young people out there.

But honestly, he won't! He promises more than a used car salesman.

He makes all sorts of promises regarding the economy, jobs, immigration, race relations, over taxation, energy self-sufficiency, helping small businesses recover, priority this and priority that, yet the only real priority Barack Obama has shown Americans is a desire to raise millions of dollars for himself on the campaign trail and go on vacations as often as possible.


As far as I can see, his priority is what's good for Barack Obama financially and politically - and to hell with everyone else.


FIFTH SHOT! 

Hollywood Might Be Learning Right and Wrong?

A new release called Gangster Squad is a gangster film inspired by the true story of an "unauthorized" police special task force that was formed by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1949.

It was formed to deal with the influx of organized crime moving into Los Angeles.

They were supposedly called the "Gangster Squad." And yes, they had an unusually wide latitude in their authority when dealing with mobsters.

In fact they were known to have skirted around the law - and in fact many times conducting themselves in manners completely outside of the law.

In 1996, the film Mulholland Falls stared Nick Nolte, Jennifer Connelly, Chazz Palminteri, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Melanie Griffith, Andrew McCarthy, Treat Williams, John Malkovich, and Bruce Dern.

Nick Nolte played the head of an elite group of four Los Angeles Police Department detectives. It was based on the real life "Hat Squad" or "Gangster Squad " who are known for stopping at nothing to maintain control of their jurisdiction.

Their work had the approval of the L.A. police chief, and was a classic who done it crime story. All in all it was a very good movie.

As for Gangster Squad, well it was originally scheduled for release in 2012, but the film underwent reshoots of a few scenes.

Why the reshoots? Well, some say the reshot scenes were way too close to resembling the Aurora Colorado Movie Theater Shooting that occurred last July. Because it looked a lot like what had already been done in one of those Batman movies, and copied by that crazy SOB in Aurora Colorado, the folks putting out the film removed the theater massacre scene and replaced it with something else.

The film is now expected to be released around January 11th.

So yes, the good news is that this removal of an obviously offensive scene and ability to reshoot another shows that even Hollywood is not above changing its ways! Now if only the video producers would follow suit.

LAST SHOT!

Company targeting police, bounty hunters with safer ammo

Reported on January 1st, executives with a Boise-based company are poised to begin marketing a new type of ammunition specifically for law enforcement teams and designed to avoid causing serious or fatal injuries to their targets and bystanders.

The technology was created at Integrity Ballistics LLC, a company that has spent more than 10 developing and testing a round that resembles a shotgun shell.

The round fires a synthetic ball that flattens upon impact and is intended to stun or subdue the target and the plan is to make it available only to law enforcement.

The idea for the product emerged in the months after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Integrity founder Joe Kolnik started brainstorming about ways to help federal air marshals assigned to protect planes.

The goal was to develop a type of ammunition that would not cause fatal injuries to innocent bystanders or pierce the skin of a plane, yet be powerful enough to stop a potential hijacker.

What emerged is the company's Burns Round, named after Kolnik's cousin, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Kyle Burns, who died in action in Iraq in 2004, the Idaho Business Review reported in story published last week.

The product the company hopes to begin marketing in early 2013 looks like an orange shotgun shell and is made up of three proprietary components: a pliable dark gray ball, orange plastic that encases the ball and a base filled with propellant.

Fired out of a 12-gauge shotgun, the ball -- made of soft polymer composite -- flattens like a pancake on impact and stuns and bruises a human target.

The ammo is being marketed as a tool for law enforcement officers that can be used to defuse standoffs, crowd control or other scenarios in which law enforcement may need to gain the upper hand.

"It will be a lot safer for the officer and for the person being shot," said Jim Greer, the CEO who joined the company in 2008. "What our products are going to do is stop and defuse threats."

Greer said the company obtained a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives earlier this year, clearing the path to manufacture the round.

The company describes the ammo as "less-lethal" and "less-than-lethal" on its website. According to the Small Arms Survey, an independent university research project located in Geneva, Switzerland, these two terms are all used to describe law enforcement ammunition such as rubber bullets and bean bags.

During the testing phase, Integrity's partners fired the Burns Round repeatedly at indoor gun ranges and targets on land administered by the federal Bureau of Land Management. They also sent the ammo to Wayne State University in Detroit for more rigorous trials.

Integrity's website displays two results from the university's Ballistics Impact Research Lab that show the Burns Round causes less penetration and soft tissue damage than sock rounds.

About 450 companies in 52 countries make less-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons, according to the Small Arms Survey. Many of the firms provide both ammunition and "launchers." Integrity Ballistics concentrates on ammo alone.

The company will begin marketing its product to law enforcement agencies, bounty hunters and the prison industry in January.

My only question, why not regular Americans as well so that we can better defend our homes and families and obtain the same results as what law enforcement will?

A just "less-lethal" and "less-than-lethal" round just might be a good thing when having to confront a burglar or intruder?

If the first round or two sends the bad guys running and really is a product that is going to stop and defuse threats, then why not make it available to American citizens to use before having to use deadly force?

Story by Tom Correa

The Fiscal Cliff: Huge Taxes & Hard Times Coming!

What Is The Fiscal Cliff?

Hitting the national economy with that double whammy of tax increases and spending cuts is what's called going over the "fiscal cliff."

The "fiscal cliff" refers to the economic effects that could result from tax increases, spending cuts and a corresponding reduction in the US budget deficit beginning in 2013 if existing laws remain unchanged.

The deficit which is the difference between what the government takes in and what it spends is projected to be reduced by roughly half in 2013.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this sharp decrease in the deficit will likely lead to a recession in early 2013. This is the so-called Fiscal Cliff.

The laws leading to the fiscal cliff include the expiration of the 2010 Tax Relief Act and planned spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Because of the short-term adverse impact on the economy, the fiscal cliff has stirred a great deal of talk from both inside and outside of Congress and has led to calls to extend some or all of the tax cuts, and to replace the spending reductions with even more targeted cutbacks.

So what has caused of the consternation over this issue?

Well, negotiators are haggling over what threshold of income to set as the demarcation between current tax rates and higher tax rates.

They are negotiating over Estate Tax limits and tax levels, how to extend unemployment benefits, how to prevent cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and how to keep a minimum income tax payment designed for the rich from hitting about 28 million middle class taxpayers.

Washington has had two years to work on it. The Obama White House delayed negotiations until after the election - giving Washington only a few months to deal with a huge problem that they have known is coming for almost two years.

The Budget Control Act was a compromise intended to resolve a dispute concerning the public debt ceiling.

Some major programs, like Social Security, Medicaid, federal pay which of course includes military pay and pensions, and veterans' benefits, are exempted from the spending cuts.

Spending for defense, federal agencies and cabinet departments would be reduced through broad cuts referred to as budget "Sequestration."

So who came up with this?

Well, during a lame duck session in December 2010, Nancy Pelosi's Democrat controlled Congress passed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

The act extended the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years and "patched" the exemptions to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for tax year 2011.

This act also authorized a one-year reduction in the Social Security (FICA) employee payroll tax. This was extended for an additional year by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which also extended federal unemployment benefits and continued a freeze on Medicare physician payments.

On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) as part of an agreement to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis.

The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. If you remember, it was called the "super committee" to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years.

When the super committee failed to act, another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts - known as "sequestrations" - to take place split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013.

Also, the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, imposed new taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year, $200,000 for individuals, starting at the same time in January 2013.

Remember Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi famous said, "We have to pass the bill [ObamaCare] so you can find out what is in it" - well, they really should have read the new law before enacting it into law.

At the end of 2011, the fiscal patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemptions expired.

Technically, the AMT thresholds immediately reverted to their 2000 tax year levels, a drop of 26% for single people and 40% for married couples. Anyone over these reduced thresholds at the end of 2012 would be subject to the AMT.

That means, more taxpayers would pay more unless some legislation was passed like what was done back in  2007 that affects the exemptions retroactively.

Key laws leading to the fiscal cliff:

• CBO projections of the sources of deficit reduction in the FY2013 budget, not counting economic feedback.
• Expiration of tax cuts and the subsequent growth in the AMT: $221B (36.41%)
• Expiration of 2% FICA payroll tax cut: $95B (15.65%)
• Other expiring tax provisions: $65B (10.71%)
• Affordable Care Act taxes: $18B (3.97%)
• Spending cuts ("sequestration") under the Budget Control Act of 2011: $65B (10.71%)
• Expiration of federal emergency unemployment insurance: $26B (4.28%)
• Reduction in Medicare payment rates for doctors: $11B (1.81%)
• Other changes (mostly revenue, primarily reflecting economic growth): $105B (17.30%)

A number of laws led to the fiscal cliff, including these provisions:

• Expiration of the Bush tax cuts extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010;
• Across-the-board spending cuts ("sequestration") to most discretionary programs as directed by the Budget Control Act of 2011;
• Reversion of the Alternative Minimum Tax thresholds to their 2000 tax year levels;
• Expiration of measures delaying the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate from going into effect (the "doc fix"), as extended by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012;
• Expiration of the 2% Social Security payroll tax cut;
• Expiration of federal unemployment benefits, and
• Huge new taxes imposed by way of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - aka ObamaCare.

Without new legislation, these provisions would automatically go into effect on January 1 or 2, 2013, except for the Alternative Minimum Tax growth, which can be changed retroactively until December 31, 2012.

Some provisions would increase taxes. For example, the expiration of the Bush and FICA payroll tax cuts and the new Affordable Care tax and AMT thresholds) while others would reduce spending (sequestration, expiration of unemployment benefits and implementation of the Medicare SGR).

On the other hand, some lawmakers intend to attach a bipartisan extension to the expiring wind-power tax credit. Unlike the provisions above, this will reduce, not increase, taxes by $1.3 billion.

Proposals to avoid the fiscal cliff involve repealing legislation containing certain of these provisions or passing new legislation to extend provisions that are due to expire.

But honestly, Washington is out of time.

So what is the baseline projection, if we follow the current law? Well, this scenario would have lower deficits and debt but also have lower spending and higher taxes.

The alternative fiscal scenario is estimated as another option only if some laws are changed. This would result in higher deficits and debt but lower taxes and higher spending. Basically the very problem we have now.

These are two completely different fiscal futures.

So would it help if we just went off this so-called cliff?

Well, that's the question that some folks around the country are wrestling with. Fact is that the United States public debt would continue to grow even if the fiscal cliff occurs.

But, over the next ten years, the smaller deficit will lower projected increases in the debt by as much as $7.1 trillion or about 70%, resulting in a considerably lower ratio of debt to the size of the economy.

For the first year (from fiscal year 2012 to 2013), federal tax revenues are projected to increase by almost 20% (specifically 19.63%), while spending outlays are expected to decline by 0.25%.

So in other words, everyone's taxes will go up dramatically while hardly any cuts are expected in the way Washington spends our money. In reality, it would be the highest tax increase since the days of War Mobilization and America's highest taxation which took place in World War II - all while unbridled spending takes place.

If Congress and the President do not act, allowing tax cuts to expire and mandated spending cuts to be implemented, the next decade will more closely resemble the baseline projection of lower deficits and debt but also have lower spending and higher taxes.

If they act to extend current policies, keeping lower tax rates in place and postponing or preventing the spending cuts, the next decade will more closely resemble the alternate fiscal scenario - which means we'll simply have more of the same.

If the so-called fiscal cliff takes place, the total deficit reduction or debt avoidance over ten years could be as high as $7.1 trillion, versus the $10–11 trillion debt increases if current policies are extended.

In other words, roughly 70% of debt increases projected over the next 10 years could be avoided by allowing the expiration of tax cuts and required sequestration expected at the end of 2012 in the absence of new legislation.

In the long run, lower deficits and debt should lead to relatively higher growth estimates. But, in the short run, real GDP growth in 2013 would likely be reduced to 0.5% from 1.1%.

This would mean that Obama has spent us into a certain recession and a 1.3% GDP contraction during the first half of the year followed by what most believe we be 2.3% growth in the second half.

Projected effects

Overall effects of the fiscal cliff are scary.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that allowing certain laws on the books during 2012 to expire or take effect in 2013 (the baseline scenario) would cut the 2013 deficit approximately in half and significantly reduce the trajectory of future deficits and debt increases for the next decade and beyond.

If Congress acts to extend current policies, the alternative scenario, then deficits and debt will rise rapidly over the next decade and beyond, slowing the economy over the long run and dramatically increasing interest costs.

The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimates that if the baseline scenario is allowed to take effect in 2013, it would reduce federal spending by $103 billion and increase tax revenues by $399 billion (and another $105 billion "mostly in revenue") through September 2013 (the end of FY2013).

This would amount to a net total of $560 billion, roughly half the $1.2 trillion FY2011 deficit. 

And no, it's not only the rich, the wealthy, the successful who would be drastically effected.

Because of all of the hidden spending in ObamaCare, and stopping the Bush Tax-Cuts, the Obama White House estimates that a family of four with an income of $50,000 to $85,000 would pay an additional $2,200 in federal taxes.

Each piece of the fiscal cliff has varying effects on people at different income levels.

Low-income households are most affected by expiring expansions of the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

Middle-income households are affected most by the payroll tax and income tax increases.

Households at the top income level are most affected by the income tax and the tax increases on unearned income such as capital gains.

Many experts have argued that the U.S. should avoid the fiscal cliff while taking steps to bring the long-term deficit and debt trajectory under control. 

For example, economist Paul Krugman recommended that the U.S. focus on employment in the short-run, rather than the deficit.

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke emphasized the importance of balancing long-term deficit reduction with actions that would not slow the economy in the short-run.

Charles Konigsburg, who directed the bi-partisan Domenici-Rivlin deficit reduction panel, advocated avoiding the fiscal cliff while taking steps to reduce the budget deficit over time. He recommended the adoption of ideas from deficit panels such as Domenici-Rivlin and Bowles-Simpson that accomplish these two goals.

Other experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Carlyle Group have argued that allowing the tax increases and spending cuts to occur under current law may be necessary to create the "grand bargain" required to get the U.S. deficit and debt trajectory under control for the long-run.

In other words, allowing current law to take effect would create conditions under which legislators might be forced to enact better designed deficit reduction approaches of similar or greater magnitude.

Conservative budget experts have opposed calls to raise taxes or to allow defense sequestration, and have called on congressional leaders to return to normal budgetary process.

Patrick Knudsen, a Heritage Foundation fellow, argued that lawmakers should seek long-term stability by rejecting short-term fixes and "grand bargains."

According to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the deep across-the-board cuts in defense spending required by the Budget Control Act will threaten military-dependent local economies and "do great damage" to American military strength and homeland security.

During November 2012, President Obama expressed a preference for replacing the more blunt cuts of the sequester with more targeted cuts, while raising income tax rates on the top 2% of earners.

The White House said they would veto of any bill that: 1 - averts defense cuts while leaving intact non-defense cuts; or 2 - excludes an increase in tax rates for top earners (the job creators).

As of November 30, 2012, Obama was calling for $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over ten years, and cuts of another $400 billion from Medicare and other benefit programs over a decade.

Obama also wanted another Stimulus Package of "at least $50 billion" in 2013. He said it is "to boost the economy." But some folks don't believe him and insist it is to pay off big Campaign Donors

Of course, Obama does not want to discuss where the money for his first almost One Trillion Dollar Stimulus Package went to because no one seems to know where all the money did go.

Democrats in Congress have dutifully marched to the tune that Obama has played. 

Congressional Republicans have proposed that the Bush tax cuts be extended in their entirety.

Republicans have dutifully marched to the tune set by the voters in this last November Election and have rejected Obama lame proposals. 

The Timeline Shows This Is All A Result Of Passing ObamaCare 

Some say that this has all come to a head because of Obama's desire for power. Some say it is the result of the federal government's expansion of power and taxation through ObamaCare.

I believe it all has to do with Obama's desire to "fundamentally change America" by bankrupting the country.

March 23, 2010: President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of this law's provisions is to impose new taxes on families starting in 2013.

December 17, 2010: Obama signed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, patching the AMT through 2011 and extending the Bush tax cuts to the end of 2012.

August 2, 2011: The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act provided that, if the Joint Select Committee did not produce bipartisan legislation, across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013.

February 22, 2012: Obama signed into law the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extended the following provisions until December 31, 2012: the 2% Social Security payroll tax cut, federal unemployment benefits and the freeze on Medicare physician payments.

February 29, 2012: Ben Bernanke popularized the term "fiscal cliff" in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee.

July 3, 2012: IMF head Lagarde warned that the threat of "going over the fiscal cliff" could weaken the US economy later in 2012. The IMF also reduced its projection for US growth in 2013 from 2.4 to 2.25 percent of GDP.

July 17, 2012: Bernanke pushed Congress to avoid the fiscal cliff, warning that a failure to do so will further dampen the sluggish economic recovery.

July 31, 2012: Reid and Boehner agreed on a continuing resolution that would pay for the day-to-day running of the government until the end of March 2013. This does not affect the fiscal cliff or the debt-ceiling.

August 7, 2012: Obama signed the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, which directed his administration to detail in 30 days how they plan to implement the automatic cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act.

September 14, 2012: Obama released a 400-page report listing his proposal for spending cuts.

October 22, 2012: At the third of three presidential debates, Obama says sequestration "will not happen."

November 16, 2012: President Obama met with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders to discuss the fiscal cliff and to try to come up with their initial plans immediately after the Thanksgiving break.

November 28, 2012: Certain Republicans, such as Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), supported "modifying tax expenditures as a way to raise revenue."

November 29, 2012: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner delivered a proposal containing $1.6 trillion in new taxes, $50 billion in stimulus spending, and $400 billion in federal health savings over the next decade.

As part of the proposal, the President wants an extension of the 2% payroll tax cut and authority to by-pass the Constitution and Congress and raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants to.

December 3, 2012: Both Republicans and Democrats remain in the early stages of negotiations for a possible solution. Republicans proposed adding $600 billion in spending cuts by increasing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and reducing Social Security benefits.

But both parties continue to ridicule each other's proposals,such as when Jay Carney called a proposal "magic beans and fairy dust" or when Boehner called a proposal a "La-La Land offer."

December 5, 2012: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered to vote on President Obama’s proposal, as proposed by Treasury Secretary Geithner, as an amendment to H.R. 6156, the Russian trade bill, in the Senate. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.), prevented the vote.

Reid's reported reasons was that the Russian trade bill "is to protect American jobs" and “there is no Geithner proposal." McConnell said he would introduce the bill as "a stand-alone vote."

December 5, 2012: Confirming leaks from the White House, Treasury Secretary Geithner told CNBC that the Obama Administration is "absolutely" willing to go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans refused to back off from their opposition to raising rates on wealthier Americans.

But according to Economists, it is the wealthier Americans who are the job creators in America - and taxing them more will reduce their ability to hire workers or invest in their businesses.

December 13, 2012: Both parties have publicly stated the negotiations are at a stand still. Several commentators have reported that a deal is not expected until after December 25, 2012 but not before

December 15, 2012: In confidential talks, Boehner proposed an increase in tax rates for those who earn over a million dollars.

December 17, 2012: According to media reports, various proposals were exchanged between President Obama and House Speaker Boehner to deal with the fiscal cliff.

These included: changing the Consumer Price Index for entitlements to a "chained" CPI, allowing marginal tax rates to increase on income over $400,000, a one- or two-year increase in the debt ceiling and increasing the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.

December 18, 2012: Speaker Boehner announced that the House would vote on a "Plan B", which would raise tax rates on people earning more than a million dollars a year.

December 20, 2012: "Plan B" was pulled from consideration in the House because the Republican leadership could not find enough votes to pass the legislation. This was seen as a defeat for Speaker Boehner.

December 21, 2012: With just 10 days left before the end of the year, President Obama scaled back his proposals and urged Congress to adopt stopgap measures to: prevent taxes from rising on income under $250,000 a year, restore unemployment benefits and “lay the groundwork” for budgetary action next year.

December 26, 2012: The US Treasury Department announced that it will begin a series of measures, similar to the ones taken in the summer of 2011, to delay exceeding the current 16.4 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

December 27, 2012: Obama cuts short a vacation to Hawaii and returns to Washington D.C. in a last-chance attempt at a deal regarding the fiscal cliff.

December 28, 2012: According to confidential sources, the 112th Congress may not pass legislation to avert the fiscal cliff until January because Congress will not meet until December 31, 2012.

The 113th Congress is scheduled to convene January 3, 2013 at 12 p.m.

December 28, 2012: Speaker Boehner and President Obama turned negotiations over to Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell to create a last minute agreement. At last check, nothing was taking place to avert the so-called cliff.

It is interesting to note that The Boston Globe reported on Friday that the IRS may delay the impact of tax hikes by holding off on telling employers to change how much they withhold from workers.

Why the Fiscal Cliff Won't be Bad for State Governments?

An article on December 26th, asks if falling off the "fiscal cliff" is a bad thing?

It concludes that that might not necessarily be the case for some state governments that could begin collecting more in Estate Taxes on wealth left to heirs if the United States goes over the "cliff," allowing sharp tax increases and federal spending cuts to take effect in January.

In an example of federal and state tax law interaction that gets little notice on Capitol Hill, a full 30 states next year could collect $3 billion more in Estate Taxes if Congress and Obama do not act soon, estimated the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center which is a Washington Think Tank.

The reason they see this?

Well, the federal Estate Tax would return with a vengeance and so would a federal credit system that shares a portion of it with the 30 states.

They had been getting their cut of this tax revenue stream until the early 2000s. That was when the credit system for payment of state Estate Tax went away due to tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush.

With the return of the credit system next year as part of the "cliff," states such as Florida, Colorado and Texas - which have not collected estate tax since 2004 - could resume doing so.

California Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has already begun to add the anticipated estate tax revenue into his plans, including $45 million of it in his 2012-2013 revised budget. And yes, that's why we are in so much trouble in this state - "creative finances."

Greedy Democrats like Jerry Brown may or may not be jumping the gun

The outlook on the "fiscal cliff" coming up at year-end is looking fairly certain.

Weeks of inconclusive political drama over the "cliff" have focused largely on individual income tax rates and spending on federal programs such Medicare and Social Security, but many tax issues are also involved, including the Estate Tax.

At the moment, under laws signed a decade ago by Bush, the Estate Tax is applied to inherited assets at a rate of 35% after a $5 million exemption.

That means a deceased person can pass on an inheritance of up to $5 million before any tax applies.

Inherited property wealth passed to a spouse or a federally recognized charity is generally not taxed.

Obama wants to raise the rate to 55%  after a $1 million exemption.

Republicans have called for complete repeal of the estate tax, which we call the "death tax." Earlier this month Speaker Boehner actually called for freezing the Estate Tax at its present level just to help out some folks like Farmers who have a great deal to lose.

Obama and Democrats across the nation are way too greedy to allow folks to inherit what is left to them. They want it all, and if not all - than as much of it as they can get.

Besides Obama, States Stand To Gain With Cliff

If Congress and Obama do not act by December 31, numerous Bush-era tax laws will expire, including the one on estate taxes. That would mean the Estate Tax rate will shoot up next year to the Bill Clinton levels of 55% after a $1 million exemption.

It would also mean that for the first time in years, a portion of that estate tax would go to the states, through the return of the credit system.

Under that old law, estates paying the tax could get a credit against their federal tax bill for state estate tax payments of up to 16 percent of the estate's value.

If the fiscal cliff were allowed to take hold unaltered by Washington, 30 states would again automatically begin getting their share of federal estate taxes. The state laws are generally written so the state estate tax amounts are calculated under a formula based on the amount of the federal credit.

This would help states that have struggled with lower tax revenues since the 2007-2009 financial crisis and resulting recession.

Political greed has a way of working out that way, the more they tax - the less businesses can stay afloat and subsequently less tax revenues come in. Imagine that! 

An Increased "Death Tax" will take it's toll!

For places like California where land is worth so much, a $1 Million exemption on inherited property is not very much.

Because of this, we can expect to see Farms disappear instead of them being passed down one generation top the next.

Since they are barely holding on right now, it is almost for certain that increased inheritance taxes will be what finally kills many farms across the nation.

What will it cost you?

Fiscal deal failure would dent monthly budgets for millions

Families across the country might soon have to start trimming back their monthly budgets, with lawmakers running out of time and ideas for averting a crushing set of tax hikes.

President Obama, cutting his family vacation short, flew out of Hawaii late Wednesday and planned to be back in Washington by Thursday morning. He was definitely not happy about cutting another vacation short.

He is truly working on his golf game and doesn't like interruptions.

Of course it's not clear what Obama will do once in Washington, as of last Wednesday, Congressional leaders on all sides reported little to no bipartisan progress, or even conversations, toward a fiscal crisis deal over the Christmas break.

Obama aides and lawmakers are now talking about a scaled-down package as the most likely vehicle for solving the problem, something that could at least prevent most of the scheduled tax hikes.

But without at least a short-term fix, families are going to have to break out the calculators in the new year. And yes, thanks to Obama's tax hikes they will have to figure out how to make do with a lot less.

"You're going to have less money to spend in a very difficult economy with very little clarity on how the economy will pick up in the near future, or even in the long run," financial adviser Ed Butowsky said. "We are entering into a very difficult economic environment, unfortunately."

According to numbers crunched by the Tax Policy Center, millions of families will take a hit, to varying degrees.

For those making below $10,000, the tax increase amounts to roughly $300.

But those making between $40,000 and $50,000 would pay an additional $1,700 in 2013.

Up the pay scale a bit more, households earning $50,000-$75,000 would send an extra $2,300 to Washington.

And for those households making over $200,000 - but under $500,000 - the tax bill will grow by roughly $14,000.

And yes, believe it or not, the numbers go up from there!  Those American households making more than one million dollars a year could pay more than $200,000 in additional taxes.

So ask yourself, by taxing Americans more, will the Federal Government cut its spending? That's like asking an Addict if they get more dope would they stop using it. The answer is no.

Obama sees the Federal Government as his own private checking account the same as if it were set up by his grandma. And yes, when the money runs out, he does exactly as used to do as a kid - simply get more.

In my opinion, in an effort to change the country fundamentally Obama wants to kill the concept of the American Dream which says if we work hard and push ourselves, then we can get ahead and become prosperous even exceeding the dreams of our father's.

In my opinion, this whole litany of tax hikes is Obama's way of saying "Happy New Year Suckers" as he tries to bankrupt America.

Story by Tom Correa