Thursday, August 1, 2013

The M1911A1 Pistol - The Birth Of A Legend

Origin: The United States

From 1911 to 1924, this remarkable pistol was designated the M1911. Since 1924, the legendary pistol has been officially known as the M1911A1

Designer John M. Browning
Weapon type: semi-automatic pistol
Manufacturer: Originally Colt, later many many others.

Specifically: Its weight is 2.437 lb; overall length is 8.25 in; barrel length is 5.03 inches for a standard Government model; cartridge is the .45 ACP; its action is a short recoil operation; it has a muzzle velocity of 830 fps; and it feed system is 7 rounds using standard magazines.

The Legend

The M1911 is a .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) semi-automatic, magazine fed, recoil operated pistol. It is a "single-action" design, meaning that it cannot be fired from a "hammer-down" condition like the modern "double-action" semi-automatics today. But while its first shot is in "single-action," unlike a single-action revolver, the M1911 does not need to be manually cocked for each shot because the hammer is automatically cocked each time the slide is cycled. While some consider single-action a drawback, it allows for smoother trigger pull, and also, many, such as myself, believe that the M1911 has greater accuracy than double-action designs. 

It is also one of the safest pistols ever made, with a mechanism-locking engageable thumb safety, a grip safety that disconnects the trigger if the shooter is not actually gripping the weapon, a half-cock position on the hammer, and a spring-retained firing pin that does not rest on the primer and can only be overcome by the force of the hammer dropping from the fully-cocked position. Newer models also have an internal firing pin block for added redundancy.

The Designation Confusion

From 1911 to 1924, it was designated the M1911. 
Because of a few basic improvements in 1924, the updated adopted model became the M1911A1. 

Several other countries including Norway and Argentina also adopted domestically-produced M1911s as their standard-issue sidearm.

It is considered possibly one of the greatest pistols of all time by many and almost universally held as having remained superior in certain aspects such as durability and, by virtue of the more-powerful cartridge that it uses.

To many, including me, there is no match to its lethality. And yes, it surely out performs in that department to the Beretta M9 which replaced it as standard military-issue.

Its reliability and lethality are legendary.

In fact, many original M1911s that were used in World War I are still fully functional today. Some M1911s are known to have fired well over a million rounds, and are still in use. In contrast, the M9 is not as hardy as it frequently has to be rebuilt after firing just 5,000. 

The M1911 was designed by the legendary American gunsmith John M. Browning, who also created the M2 .50 caliber machine gun among many other weapons. John Moses Browning's design influenced many later pistol designs, including the HK USP.

Today it is used by more than 28 nations. M1911s are still manufactured today by many companies including Colt, Springfield Armory, Kimber, Remington, Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, Les Baer, Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, Armscor, Rock Island Arms, and others. Each manufacturer offers specific options, with some of them producing Commander and Compact models in addition to full-size. Though not the official sidearm of the military today, after 100 years of service it is still in service with some United States military units to this day as well as many law enforcement agencies.

Originally produced by Colt, during World War II had wartime mass-production contracts were also given to Remington Rand, Remington UMC, Ithaca, Springfield Armory, and Union Switch & Signal.

As the standard U.S. service pistol, it served in World War I, World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Though replaced by the M9, the M1911A1 was used in the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and in conflicts throughout the world. It is estimated that well over 3 million have been used by the U.S. over the years.

The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces.

Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era. In total, the United States military procured around 3 million M1911 and M1911A1 pistols in military contracts during its service life.

The M1911 was used extensively by the United States Military as its primary issue sidearm from 1911 through 1986. And yes, believe it or not, its still being used today by our military. Imagine that for a moment. What other piece of equipment that was designed over 100 years ago, and has seen almost no change in its construction, and is still in use today?

None that I can think of! And yes, that in itself is a testament to its legendary qualities. The M1911 was replaced by the M9 pistol as the standard U.S. sidearm in the early 1990s, but due to its popularity among users, it has not been completely phased out.

Modern M1911 variants are still in use by some units within the U.S. Army Special Forces, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps.

Designed by John Browning, the M1911 is the best-known of his designs to use the short recoil principle in its basic design. The pistol was widely copied, and this operating system rose to become the preeminent type of the 20th century and of nearly all modern centerfire pistols. It is popular with law enforcement, personal protection, civilian shooters in competitive events such as USPSA and IDPA, International Practical Shooting Confederation, and Bullseye shooting.

Compact variants are popular civilian concealed carry weapons, because of the design's inherent slim width and the power of the .45 ACP cartridge.

The M1911 pistol originated in the late 1890s as the result of a search for a suitable self-loading - or semi-automatic - pistol to replace the variety of revolvers then in service.

By the late 1890s, the United States was adopting new firearms at a phenomenal rate. Several were new pistols such as a series of revolvers by Colt and Smith & Wesson for the Army and Navy. The other two were all-new service rifles, the M1892/96/98 Krag and M1895 Navy Lee. The next decade would see a similar pace, including the adoption of several more revolvers and an intensive search for a self-loading pistol that would culminate in official adoption of the M1911.

"Automatic" firearms?

Hiram S. Maxim had designed a self-loading rifle in the 1880s, but was preoccupied with machine guns. Nevertheless, the application of his principle of using bullet energy to reload led to several self-loading pistols in 1896. The designs caught the attention of various militaries, each of which began programs to find a suitable one for their forces. In the U.S., such a program would lead to a formal test at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.

At the end of 1899 and the start of 1900, a test of self-loading pistols was conducted, which included entries from Mauser with the famous C96 "Broomhandle", Mannlicher and his Steyr Mannlicher M1894, and Colt with the Colt M1900. This led to a U.S. Army purchase of 1,000 DWM Luger pistols, chambered in 7.65 mm Luger, a bottlenecked cartridge.

During field trials these ran into some problems, especially with stopping power. Basically, the .32 ACP was too anemic. And yes, even other governments had made similar complaints. Consequently, DWM produced an enlarged version of the round, the 9 mm Parabellum, which is known currently as the 9×19 mm NATO. It was a necked-up version of the 7.65 mm round. Fifty of these were tested as well by the U.S. Army in 1903.

America needed a .45!

American units fighting Moro guerrillas during the Philippine-American War using the then-standard Colt M1892 revolver, in .38 Long Colt, found it to be unsuitable for the rigors of jungle warfare. And yes, this is particularly important in terms of stopping power.

The fact is the Moros used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain, and the .38 Long Colt simply did not have the stopping power to knock them down and keep them there. One story has it that troops in the Philippines wrote home and had their families send their fathers' 1873 Colt Single Action Army pistols in .45 Colt to get some stopping power into their hands. The rest of the story goes that that made the Army revert to reissuing the M1873 Colt service revolvers to the troops there.

Whether that's true or not, it is known that the U.S. Army did in fact briefly revert to using the M1873 single-action revolver in .45 Colt caliber, which had been standard during the late 19th century. The heavier bullet was found to be more effective against charging tribesmen high on opium. The stopping power problems prompted the then-Chief of Ordnance, General William Crozier, to authorize further testing for a new service pistol.

The 1904 Thompson-LaGarde Pistol Round Effectiveness Tests

The Thompson-LaGarde Tests were a series of tests conducted in 1904 to determine which caliber should be used in new military handguns. US troops had considerable difficulty stopping the Moro warriors and other combatants with the .38 Long Colt, and the U.S. Army began to consider the problem.

The task was assigned to Army Colonel John T. Thompson of the Infantry and Major Louis Anatole LaGarde of the Medical Corps. The tests were conducted at the Nelson Morris Company Union Stock Yards in Chicago, Illinois, using both live cattle outside a local slaughterhouse, as well as some human cadavers.

Several different calibers were used during the tests including the .476 Eley (UK), 7.65x22mm Parabellum (.30 Luger), 9x19mm Parabellum (Germany), .38 Long Colt, .38 ACP, .45 Colt (US) and the .455 Webley (UK). 

The first day of testing involved eight live cattle. Seven were shot through the lungs using different caliber rounds, and the effects were recorded. The remaining animal was shot through the intestines with the .476 Eley. If the animal took too long to die, it was put down by a hammer blow to the head. Results were highly variable due to differences in shot placement, round types, animal size, and the number of times the animal was shot, according to reports. 

For the second day, the test procedures were changed so that each animal would be rapidly shot in the lungs until the animal had died or 10 rounds had been fired. For this test, five to ten animals were used. LaGarde said sixteen cattle and two horses were shot. Again, results were highly variable, and weapon jamming also contributed to the variability this time, according to reports.

The cadaver tests were conducted by suspending the body, and measured the sway caused when the body was shot from different distances. As the suspended body constituted a ballistic pendulum, this measured the relative momentum of the rounds to some extent.

After the tests, Thompson and LaGarde stated:

"The Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45. ...

None of the full-jacketed or metal-patch bullets (all of which were less than cal. . 45) showed the necessary shock effect or stopping power for a service weapon. ...

We are not acquainted with any bullet fired from a hand weapon that will stop a determined enemy when the projectile traverses soft parts alone. The requirements of such a bullet would need to have a sectional area like that of a 3-inch solid shot the recoil from which when used in hand weapons would be prohibitive. ...

Finally the Board reached the conclusion that the only safeguard at close encounters is a well-directed rapid fire from nothing less than a .45-caliber weapon.

With this end in view soldiers should be drilled to fire at moving targets until they have attained proficiency as marksmen."

Though the Thompson-LaGarde Tests have since been criticized as being "highly unscientific" and not credible, others, such as Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper regarded the tests as well conducted. The saw the recommendation as fully supported by the evidence available to the board, and empirical evidence subsequently available concerning stopping power and handgun effectiveness.

The Army did not pay attention to the critics.

Instead, they followed the 1904 Thompson-LaGarde pistol round effectiveness tests recommendations by Colonel John T. Thompson stated that the new pistol "should not be of less than .45 caliber" and would preferably be semi-automatic in operation. This led to the 1906 trials of pistols from six firearms manufacturing companies - Colt, Bergmann, Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken (DWM), Savage Arms Company, Knoble, Webley, and White-Merril. Of the six designs submitted, three were eliminated early on, leaving only the Savage, Colt, and DWM designs chambered in the new .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) cartridge. 

These three still had issues that needed correction, but only Colt and Savage resubmitted their designs.  Though there is some debate over the reasons for DWM's withdrawal, most doesn't hold water. Some folks say that DWM felt that there was bias and that the DWM design was being used primarily just as "show" and was not taken seriously. But that does make much sense, especially if one considers the earlier 1,000 DWM Luger pistol purchase of the DWM design over the Colt and Steyr entries back in 1900.

More Tests!
John Moses Browning

From 1907 to 1911, another series of field tests were held to decide between the Savage and Colt designs. Both designs were improved between each testing over their initial entries, leading up to the final test before adoption.

Among the areas of success for the Colt was a test at the end of 1910 attended by its designer, John Browning. 

On 29 March 1911, the Secretary of War approved the Colt Caliber .45 Automatic Pistol. It would become the longest-serving handgun in US military history. It is one of the most enduring handguns in American History.

The gun, designated M1911 for Model 1911, now often called just "1911," was adopted 12 years after the military considered using a ".45 caliber" in an "automatic handgun."

Its inventor, John Moses Browning, had worked on this project for 16 years. In 1911, the right combination of design, capability, and reliability was proven in a 6,000-round endurance test. Yes, it's true, over the course of two days, a single M1911 pistol fired over six-thousand rounds. It's said that when the gun began to grow hot, it was simply immersed in water to cool it. The Colt gun passed without a single malfunction, while its competitor, the Savage design, had stopped 37 times.

Below is a picture of the first M1911, the one used in the test that fired the 6,000 rounds. Note the discoloration from where it got hot and was quenched. 

And as for what happened next? Well, the rest is history!


Photo from M1911 forum

Yes, the rest is history.

Tom Correa



Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Sen. McCain unhappy with Fox News, Tea Party, but supports Hillary Clinton?


According to Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, Fox News is "schizophrenic" on immigration and the Tea Party is limiting what the Republican Party can accomplish in Congress.

In a wide-ranging interview with The New Republic, the Arizona Republican reflected on how Fox News has covered the immigration debate.

McCain said, "If you watch Fox, there are all these segments on immigrants and crime and so on, and people get riled up, and then they want reform. It's a difficult dynamic in the party.  I think that Fox News is a bit schizophrenic. I saw a guy on 'Hannity,' maybe 'Huckabee,' and the guy said, 'You know, the Chinese are coming across our border, and they are going to commit cyber-attacks.'…Honest to God," McCain said.

First, let's talk about Fox News.

Simply put, if a "news agency." It gives us different angles to look at, that's not "schizophrenic" - that's being "fair and balanced."

And while not every so-called political contributor is the sharpest tool in the shed, Fox News is not being the political arm of any political party.

That my friends is being an "impartial news agency." Yes, that is being something that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN cannot attest to being.

And to say, schizophrenic? Really, is that what he thinks a news agency is when a news agency gives ALL of the facts from many different aspects - even controversial ones?

While I would love for Fox News to be only a Conservative news outlet, I know they are not.

But, at the same time, I really believe that Fox News is the closest thing that Americans have to a "fair and balanced" news agency.

As for schizophrenic, is this simply a matter of Republican-In-Name-Only Senator McCain just relating what he sees in the mirror?
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by a deficit of typical emotional responses.

Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction.

Look at his voting record, where he stands on issues, who he has traditionally allied himself with, who his sponsored legislation has adversely effected, or the way he ran his pansy presidential bid, and one can accuse him of being both a liberal and schizophrenic.

In the same interview where he called Fox News schizophrenic, he said this regarding Hilary Clinton:

"She's a rock star. She has, maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world."

Really? Regarded as what?

Regarded as the lady who got 4 Americans killed in Libya? Regarded as the lady partly responsible for selling out American businesses to China? Regarded as the person who simply passed the buck to John Kerry regarding the Keystone XL pipeline? The lady, who with that decision, kissed the ass of the environmentalists and halted the prospect of needed jobs to Americans?

That "rock star"?

McCain didn't stop with calling Hillary Clinton a "rock star." He went on to say that he might cast a ballot for Democrat ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton if she faces Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul in a 2016 presidential match-up?

When the New Republic asked McCain, "When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?”

McCain's response was "It’s gonna be a tough choice!"

McCain and Paul have often found themselves on opposing sides when it comes to national security and foreign policy issues.

Earlier this year, McCain even went as far as calling other Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, "wacko birds," for which he later apologized.

"They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else," McCain said then in an interview with the Huffington Post. "But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone."

Class act, huh?

McCain and Hillary Clinton served together in the Senate and have had a close working relationship.

And though McCain recently became slightly critical of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, less than a year ago, when asked about her role as U.S. Secretary of State, McCain had the nerve to say "She did a fine job."

Dear God, I'd hate to see what he considered a rotten screwed up job.

And talk about schizophrenic, does saying "she did a fine job" make sense after McCain told the New Republic, "I do think it is interesting that the issues where John Kerry is engaging is where Hillary Clinton did not engage in, that those decisions were left to the White House and the National Security Council."

In other words, as the United States Secretary of State, the head of our State Department, Hillary Clinton did nothing when it came to political hot potatoes that she simply did not want to touch. 

McCain weighed in on one the influence of the Tea Party in Congress, saying he's concerned about the impact its members are having on the ability of Republicans to get things done.

He said the Tea Party group "sometimes doesn't want to take up a bill and at other times blocks a bill because they can't get all the amendments they want."

OK, so let's address this right here and now.

When the Tea Party wanted backing from the Republican Party. They did not get it.

The Republican Party acted as if the Tea Party was a flash in the pan and seemed as though it couldn't be bothered.

Once the Republican Party heads saw that is was indeed a grass-roots effort to get out the vote and look at our irresponsible fiscal policies, the Republicans acted as though they were one and the same.

The Tea Party, the last time I checked, is not an arm of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is there to hold politicians accountable for their actions - Republicans and Democrats.

By saying he's concerned that the Tea Party is getting in the way of Republicans to get anything done, what he's really saying is that the Tea Party group is probably seeing things that shouldn't be done and have become a pain in the ass.

A pain in the ass to politicians means they get stopped from conducting business as usual.

Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, Republicans known as "radical Republicans" dominated politics nationally for most of the period.

They were labeled "radicals" by Democrat slave owners because Republicans wanted all people to live free.

Currently the Republican Party's platform is based upon American Conservatism, in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse Liberal policies.

American Conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism.

In fact, some principles of American conservatism are actually based upon the "classical" definition of  liberalism. The ideas of liberty and freedom for all.

But the difference is this, the Republican Party's Conservatism is largely based upon its support of "classical principles" against that of "modern liberalism" of the Democratic Party.

Modern liberalism is socialism, surrendering perosnal liberty and our fundamental freedoms - and handing over all power to the government. It's about enslaving people.

That is what is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.

Maybe, just maybe, the Tea Party is stopping the Republicans from acting stupid and selling themselves and their party out by giving in to the Democrats and the ills of modern liberalism?

Has Senator John McCain thought of that?

The problem with the Republican Party is that it does not understand that they are in charge of the House of Representatives and can overturn a lot of the over-regulation and stop the spending by the Obama administration.

I really believe that because the Republican Party spent so many years playing second fiddle to the Democrat Party - that they simply don't understand the position that they are in.

The threat to America is that liberals like John McCain and the Democrat Party, which he really should be a recognized member of, understands the leadership role and their power and authority once back in control.

The threat to America is 10 fold if the Democrats take control of the full Congress in 2014.  If they do, then only God knows what they will try to get away with.

The IRS, the NSA, the EPA scandals will all be swept under the rug, and they will change our nation as never seen before.

Of course, Senator John McCain might just see that as a good thing.

Who knows what he thinks? After all, he might just be schizophrenic?


Story by Tom Correa

Sen. McCain unhappy with Fox News, Tea Party, but supports Hillary Clinton?


According to Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, Fox News is "schizophrenic" on immigration and the Tea Party is limiting what the Republican Party can accomplish in Congress.

In a wide-ranging interview with The New Republic, the Arizona Republican reflected on how Fox News has covered the immigration debate.

McCain said, "If you watch Fox, there are all these segments on immigrants and crime and so on, and people get riled up, and then they want reform. It's a difficult dynamic in the party.  I think that Fox News is a bit schizophrenic. I saw a guy on 'Hannity,' maybe 'Huckabee,' and the guy said, 'You know, the Chinese are coming across our border, and they are going to commit cyber-attacks.'…Honest to God," McCain said.

First, let's talk about Fox News.

Simply put, if a "news agency." It gives us different angles to look at, that's not "schizophrenic" - that's being "fair and balanced."

And while not every so-called political contributor is the sharpest tool in the shed, Fox News is not being the political arm of any political party.

That my friends is being an "impartial news agency." Yes, that is being something that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN cannot attest to being.

And to say, schizophrenic? Really, is that what he thinks a news agency is when a news agency gives ALL of the facts from many different aspects - even controversial ones?

While I would love for Fox News to be only a Conservative news outlet, I know they are not.

But, at the same time, I really believe that Fox News is the closest thing that Americans have to a "fair and balanced" news agency.

As for schizophrenic, is this simply a matter of Republican-In-Name-Only Senator McCain just relating what he sees in the mirror?
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by a deficit of typical emotional responses. 

Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction.

Look at his voting record, where he stands on issues, who he has traditionally allied himself with, who his sponsored legislation has adversely effected, or the way he ran his pansy presidential bid, and one can accuse him of being both a liberal and schizophrenic.

In the same interview where he called Fox News schizophrenic, he said this regarding Hilary Clinton:

"She's a rock star. She has, maybe not glamour, but certainly the aura of someone widely regarded throughout the world."

Really? Regarded as what?

Regarded as the lady who got 4 Americans killed in Libya? Regarded as the lady partly responsible for selling out American businesses to China? Regarded as the person who simply passed the buck to John Kerry regarding the Keystone XL pipeline? The lady, who with that decision, kissed the ass of the environmentalists and halted the prospect of needed jobs to Americans?

That "rock star"?

McCain didn't stop with calling Hillary Clinton a "rock star." He went on to say that he might cast a ballot for Democrat ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton if she faces Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul in a 2016 presidential match-up?

When the New Republic asked McCain, "When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?”

McCain's response was "It’s gonna be a tough choice!"

McCain and Paul have often found themselves on opposing sides when it comes to national security and foreign policy issues.

Earlier this year, McCain even went as far as calling other Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, "wacko birds," for which he later apologized.

"They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else," McCain said then in an interview with the Huffington Post. "But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone."

Class act, huh?

McCain and Hillary Clinton served together in the Senate and have had a close working relationship.

And though McCain recently became slightly critical of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, less than a year ago, when asked about her role as U.S. Secretary of State, McCain had the nerve to say "She did a fine job."

Dear God, I'd hate to see what he considered a rotten screwed up job.

And talk about schizophrenic, does saying "she did a fine job" make sense after McCain told the New Republic, "I do think it is interesting that the issues where John Kerry is engaging is where Hillary Clinton did not engage in, that those decisions were left to the White House and the National Security Council."

In other words, as the United States Secretary of State, the head of our State Department, Hillary Clinton did nothing when it came to political hot potatoes that she simply did not want to touch. 

McCain weighed in on one the influence of the Tea Party in Congress, saying he's concerned about the impact its members are having on the ability of Republicans to get things done.

He said the Tea Party group "sometimes doesn't want to take up a bill and at other times blocks a bill because they can't get all the amendments they want."

OK, so let's address this right here and now.

When the Tea Party wanted backing from the Republican Party. They did not get it.

The Republican Party acted as if the Tea Party was a flash in the pan and seemed as though it couldn't be bothered.

Once the Republican Party heads saw that is was indeed a grass-roots effort to get out the vote and look at our irresponsible fiscal policies, the Republicans acted as though they were one and the same.

The Tea Party, the last time I checked, is not an arm of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is there to hold politicians accountable for their actions - Republicans and Democrats.

By saying he's concerned that the Tea Party is getting in the way of Republicans to get anything done, what he's really saying is that the Tea Party group is probably seeing things that shouldn't be done and have become a pain in the ass.

A pain in the ass to politicians means they get stopped from conducting business as usual.

Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, Republicans known as "radical Republicans" dominated politics nationally for most of the period.

Currently the party's platform is generally based upon American conservatism, in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse more liberal policies.

American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism. In fact, some principles of American conservatism are based upon "classical liberalism" of liberty and freedom for all.

But the difference is this, the Republican Party's conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party.

Modern liberalism is socialism, surrendering perosnal liberty and our fundamental freedoms - and handing over all power to the government. It's about enslaving people.

That is what is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.

Maybe, just maybe, the Tea Party is stopping the Republicans from acting stupid and selling themselves and their Party out by giving in to the Democrats and the ills of modern liberalism?

Has Senator John McCain thought of that?

The problem with the Republican Party is that it does not understand that they are in charge of the House of Representatives and can overturn a lot of the over-regulation and stop the spending by the Obama administration.

I really believe that because the Republican Party spent so many years playing second fiddle to the Democrats - that they simply don't understand the position that they are in.

The threat to America is that liberals like John McCain and the Democrat Party, which he really should be a recognized member of, understands the leadership role and the authority of their control.

The threat to America is if the Democrats take control of the full Congress in 2014.  If they do, then only God knows what they will try to get away with.

Of course, Senator John McCain might just see that as a good thing.

Who knows what he thinks? After all, he might just be schizophrenic? 


Story by Tom Correa

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Obama Keystone XL Policy Creating Outrage - Not Jobs

President Obama’s latest comments on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, including his weak attempt to downplay the number of jobs it would create, are igniting outrage over concerns that the administration may not approve the project.

To some, the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline has been one of the most divisive political issues of the past four years. It has essentially pit Republicans and other pro-business groups including labor unions against extremist in liberal environmentalist groups and the Democrat Party.

Others see the Keystone XL oil pipeline for what it is, just another pipeline in a network of oil pipelines that will bring needed jobs to America.
President Obama's tact on the pipeline is the same as his approach to other issues such as:
  • The IRS breaking the law,
  • the NSA spying on our citizens,
  • the EPA handing over private information about farms and ranchers to Environmentalist extremist groups,
  • the 2,212 assault weapons that Eric Holder allowed into the hands of Mexican Drug Lords and killers,
  • the wrongful deaths of a Border Patrol Agent,
  • and of course there are those who the admistration turned thier backs on at the consulate in Libya. 
First, he ignores it; next he says its being "looked into" or he's waiting for "findings" from some group made up of his political appointees; after that he stalls longer for one reason or another; then he finally starts to "attack" it.

It the case of the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, and the Benghazi scandals, he gets the liberal news media to join his chorus in branding their criminal acts as "phony."

Now its the Keystone XL oil pipeline's turn to be denigrated publicly.

The president started it in an interview Saturday with the New York Times when he repeated his position that the administration’s decision "will be based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere."

However, he also took a swipe at what he described as the Republicans’ argument that Keystone would be a "big jobs generator."

"There is no evidence that that's true," Obama said, arguing the best estimate is 2,000 initial construction jobs followed by no more than an additional 100 jobs.

The newspaper's transcript of the interview showed Obama chuckling as he made the point.

"That is a blip relative to the need," he said.

With the left-leaning Associated Press, using their own survey, reporting that 4 out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.

The AP stating that it is a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

The survey data is exclusive to The Associated Press. It points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

But Mr. Lip Servive Obama doesn't get it!

He doesn't understand any job creation is better than his policy of no job creation if a project doesn't meet his liberal policitcal test.

Is it OK with his liberal supporters in extreme environmentalist groups?

No, so why should we think that it will pass. Fact is, it won't take place until we get control of the entire Congress.

Obama estimates significantly lower job creation than his own State Department’s projection of 42,000 constructions jobs and way smaller than the 118,935 that project developer TransCanada expects.
Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, the comments only fueled concern that the administration is viewing the pipeline with increasing skepticism, after sidelining the decision during the presidential election year.

Republicans blasted Obama on Monday for his comments and for apparently chuckling while discussing the controversial issue while at his own jobs rally Wednesday.

"A president disparaging private-sector jobs while backstage at a jobs rally is beyond belief," Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told FoxNews.com.

"In this economy, any source of private job creation should be welcomed with open arms. After nearly five years … there is no reason to delay these jobs another day. Republicans, Democrats, leading unions, and job creators all agree, it’s time to start building."

The Republican National Committee said in a statement Monday: “President Obama joked about the potential job creating power of the Keystone XL pipeline. With our economy lagging, the president should be jumping at any opportunity to create jobs instead of bending to the will of special (interests) at the expense of out of work Americans.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokesman Matt Letourneau told FoxNews.com the president’s comments indeed raised concerns but that the group “was not terribly surprised.”

“The president has had ample opportunity to approve this, and he has repeatedly found ways not to,” Letourneau said.

The White House did not respond to a question about where the president got his estimate -- after Obama challenged reporters in the interview to confirm the jobs projections.

Letourneau pointed to a 2011 Cornell University study with similar numbers, while adding the president “should probably stick with his own administration’s numbers.”

He also argued the non-controversial southern leg of the pipeline has already created 4,000 jobs.

The 1,179-mile-long pipeline is expected to transport as much as 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the Canadian oil sands (which will result in much of the additional carbon output) and the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Supporters say the estimated $5.3 billion project also will lower the price of gasoline and reduce the country’s dependency on foreign oil.

However, the president also downplayed those expectations, beyond the “potential benefit” of bolstering our energy-relations with a “reliable ally to the north.”

Using more lies and scare tactic to disparage the project and its needed jobs, Obama told The Times, "That oil is going to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets."

The final decision will be made by Secretary of State John Kerry and is not expected until the end of the year or early 2014 - after the next mid-term election. Imagine that!

Kerry will supposedly base the decision on a second and final State Department environmental report scheduled for a fall 2013 release and a so-called “national interest” report.

But frankly, most believe its a dead deal because Kerry will dance to Obama tune!

The second report, which is expected to be complete in late this year 2013, is being compiled by eight federal agencies and focuses on such issues as Keystone’s potential impact on transportation and the overall U.S. economy.

Letourneau said Obama in his major climate change speech last month also hinted at another possible layer of review.

Upton has repeatedly argued that Keystone has already been subject to 15,500 pages of environmental study and that the time is now to approve the project.

“After more than four years of regulatory delay, the administration has run out of excuses,” he said several weeks ago.

But then again, instead of the needs of the nation, Obama can always talk about that would be killer Trayvon Martin.

I mean, what else do we expect from a "phony" president!