Obama OK With "Target Killing" Americans Here?

OK, the headline reads, FBI Director: Have to check whether "Targeted Killing" rule is outside US only

Wait a minute! What does he mean, he has "to check?"

According to the article, FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice to see if Attorney General Eric Holder's "three criteria" for the "targeted killing" of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

The new phrase in the whole Obama speak dictionary is "Target Killing." And by the way, "Target Killing" is the Political Correct term for "Assassinating!"

From what I gather from Holder, it sounded like they were targeting Americans overseas as people trying to kill other Americans.

I'm up front when I say, I have no problem killing anyone of any nationality who is living overseas and is trying to kill Americans. If an American wants to kill Americans overseas, either as a part of a terrorist group or a foreign military, then he is simply a part of America's enemies overseas and needs to put down. No different than a rabid dog.

But we're talking American citizens here in America, and that is a whole different story. If a person in the process of attempting to kill Americans is himself shot and killed during the process of being arrested, than that is a completely different situation because the law is being carried out.

A person in violation of our laws is a criminal. As a criminal, our criminal justice system enables law enforcement officers to arrest and detain individuals being investigated or charged. If something goes wrong during that arrest, than yes, citizens have been known to have been killed.

That is not the same as actually targeting and killing Americans in the United States because they are wanted for something - even if it is complicity in a terrorist plot. We don't kill these people. We arrest them.

So where's the difference between here and overseas? Well first, here we have full law enforcement capabilities. Second, as citizens, we have rights to a trial. If overseas, our law enforcement cannot depend on even the slightest cooperation to locate and apprehend criminals. And if that criminal or terrorist is located, then many countries will not allow Americans to be extradited.

And why won't many countries extradite criminals and suspected terrorist to us? Well it's either because the United States does not have Extradition Treaties with those countries, or it is because most criminals running from the law have relinquished their American citizenship to stay in other countries.

To me, when they become a former American citizen - they lose all rights under our justice system. And yes, that makes them fair game for target killings overseas.

OK, so that's how I see killing terrorist operatives who used to be Americans. But, when he was pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Attorney General Eric Holder described what he sees as the legal justifications for assassination overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.

"I have to go back. Uh, I'm not certain whether that was addressed or not," Mueller said when asked by Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting

Yoder followed up asking whether "from a historical perspective," the federal government has "the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas."

"I'm going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice," Mueller replied.

Indeed, Holder's Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open. While Holder speaks of Americans who lead al Qaeda overseas, the implications of the speech seem broad.

"First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said.

Holder said the feasibility of capturing a U.S. citizen terrorist is "fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force," said Holder.

So OK, this sounds like the bad guys overseas couldn't be arrested and they were losing time, and the situation was such that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

OK, I have no problem with that.

fact is that three Americans were killed last year when lethal force was used against American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. I don't know if Awlaki relingished his American citizenship, but since he wanted to kill Americans - that becomes a mute point.

Awlaki is credited with helping plot the foiled Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and inspiring the Fort Hood shooting. The two others killed - his son and a cohort who published his online terror magazine "Inspire" - were considered by the U.S. to be collateral damage.

Asked about FBI Director Mueller's response, the Justice Department said the answer is "pretty straightforward."

"The legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.," said a spokeswoman pulling excerpts from the attorney general's speech.

OK, that's what I thought as well. But as you will see, I', wrong.

Holder said the circumstance were legal when it is a case of "an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans. The circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad," Holder added.

So if we're clear that it is to "use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad," the why is the FBI Director so screwed up as to what the policy really is? Well, the problem comes from Attorney General Holder referencing legal authority in the War on Terror that dates back to the George W. Bush administration and saying that the Obama Administration is not bound to a particular battlefield.

"Neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan," Holder said.

Eric Holder contents that it is "simply not accurate" that the President must get permission from a Federal Court before taking action against a United States citizen terrorist.

Holder said, "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

Imagine that, an Attorney General who wants to usurp the Constitution and break the law.

It is remarkable that he doesn't understand that even the President is bound by the Constitution. Granted a citizen can be arrested, for example, by a Federal Agent, but to take action in the line of a warrant or a trial than that federal agent must go through a Federal Court to take action against a Untied States citizen.

So friends, now I can actually see why FBI Director Mueller doesn't know the answer.

It's because the Obama Administration is saying that assassinations of Americans is not restricted to former Americans and American terrorist overseas - but to American citizens here at home as well.

That's scary if not stopped.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks not only would be seen by the framers of the Constitution as "the very definition of authoritarian power," but were met "not with outcry but muted applause."

"Holder's new definition of 'due process' was perfectly Orwellian," Turley wrote. "What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. ...

"Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the President would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar 'trust us' approach to civil liberties of this administration," he wrote.

I'm sorry, but giving any federal agency the power to kill Americans on orders from the President - here in the Untied States - is a American State that is too scary for me to imagine.

And this administration doesn't understand why many Americans are frightened at where he wants to take our country?

This is why, and come November it has to stop!



Story by Tom Correa

Sandra Fluke - Might Have A Problem?

Like many others, I've heard about Rush Limbaugh catching all sorts of flak from the Liberal Media because he called Sandra Fluke a "slut."

So OK, I can't help but be curious as to why he would have said that?

After looking into this, I've found out that on the morning of Wednesday, February 29th, 2012, a hearing on women's health was conducted to combat the Congressional hearing that was being held by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on the Obama Care Mandate which violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) picked a panel of Clergymen to testify on the Obama Care Mandate that is trying to force Religious Institutions to distribute contraceptives and afford its employees abortion counseling if requested - even if it goes against the basic teachings of the church.

The Liberal Media has conveniently pushed aside that primary issue by focusing on women wanting free contraceptives. This of course is the standard Liberal Media tactic of taking the heat off the Obama Administration.

The issue is not free contraceptives for women. The issue that the Liberal Media wants to divert attention away from is the Obama Care Mandate of Religious Institutions to adhere to Federal Regulations that directly oppose the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Folks, no matter what the Liberal Media trys to say, that's the real issue here!

The Liberal Media would make Americans believe that the discussion is about a women's right to free contraception coverage. During the hearing with the Clergymen, who represented the primary religions in the United States, Democrats wanted to know "where are the women on the panel?"

For some reason, probably out of convenience, the Democrats at the hearing seemed to completely reject the fact that the hearing was not about "contraceptives" - but was in fact about our First Amendment Religious Freedoms.

So another hearing on free contraceptives was called by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She wanted to steer the discussion away from that of our First Amendment Religious Rights and over to a women's need for free contraceptives.

It is apparent to me that free condoms seem to be more important to the Democrats in Washington D.C., then is our Freedom of Religion.

Nancy Pelosi arranged for a Georgetown Law Student named Sandra Fluke to testify in support of the need for free contraceptive coverage which is included in the Obama Care Mandate - otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act which was passed by Democrats in 2010 before they were ousted from Congress.

So Sandra Fluke was seated to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on a women's need for free contraceptives.

Sandra Fluke, who is a "Third Year" Law Student at Georgetown Law which is a Catholic University, is also past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ.)

During her testimony, she said, "I don't understand how you can have an open conversation without hearing from the women who have been personally affected by this."

Personally affected by what? The law has not gone into effect yet, besides it is not a discussion about a women's need for free contraceptives. You would think that a Third Year Law Student would understand what the initial hearing was about? It is about our Religious Freedom!

During here testimony, she said, "I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens."

Of course she does not mention that the reason that a Catholic Institution such as Georgetown University does not furnish contraceptives is because contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic Church and its religious doctrine.

It is obvious that she is incapable of respecting the religious doctrine of any religion. It would have been interesting to hear her complain if she were attending a Muslim University with Islamic teachings.

But she goes on and says, "We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions."

As my grandpa would say, "that is her opinion - and she is wrong." For Catholics it would be a conflict, but don't advise her of this - I'd hate to trouble her with facts.

Then she went on, saying that on a daily basis that she has heard about the plight of women, especially one, who "works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage."

Then she gets dramatic and says, "And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school."

Stop! Yes, she said that contraceptives - aka condoms - "can cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school."

No kidding! And yes, she's been in Georgetown University for at least 3 years! I can't help but wonder how that great education is turning out - if she or anyone else is not smart enough to know that $3,000.00 on condoms is insane.

But wait, there's more, she then goes on to say, "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.  40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."

OK, so from what I gather there are a lot of sexual activity going on at Georgetown University.

In fact, from what I'm hearing, I really can't understand how a Third Year Law Student who has spent $3,000.00 on condoms has time for classes. But hey, that's probably just me!

So with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I've found a solution for the students at Georgetown!
After hearing about the plight of women students at Georgetown University, I found a cheap website for them and Sandra Fluke to go to. This site will save her and any other Georgetown Law Student a lot of money.

Fact is, there is no reason that condoms for Sandra Fluke or any other student should "cost a woman over $3,000.00 during law school." Heck, I've never even heard of "professional" women spending $3,000.00 on condoms.

For those such as Sandra Fluke and the 40% at Georgetown who are spending such big money on birth control and STD protection.

My friends, here's a great link for you. It should help any student strapped for condoms! No pun intended!

TROJAN Enz Condoms Lubricated Latex - 36 count for $15.36

As Sandra Fluke said, "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."

In my opinion, the problem of no free condoms for women who are as sexually active as that bunch back East needs to be addressed.

If female students need $1,000.00 worth of condoms a year, then that is indeed a Medical Crisis - and they have bigger prolems than just a bad reputation.  

Now for you students, who like Sandra Fluke, who are extremely sexually active and spend a lot of cash on contraceptives - I have done some Homework for you.

For a box of 36 TROJAN-Enz Lubricated Latex Condoms, they sold for only $23.99 a box. That's the regular price. You multiply that by 12 months at $23.99 regular price, it will cost you $287.88 for condoms for a year!

Now as you can see, there are 36 in each box - so you will have a few left over each month if you just hold your sex drive down to once a day each month.

So for at least $287.88 a year, multiply that by 3 years, you will only spend $863.64 to get you through your Third Year of Law School at Georgetown.  That is a savings of $2136.36 for you. This extra savings is especially important for those students who are needing to find more money for beer, wine, and other sexual aids.

But hey, you will have 1296 condoms if you act now - and that will help you get to about the same level of education as Sandra Fluke is right now.

Friends, with links to cheap condoms and the money you save, you'll be missing classes and seeing your professors for "private tutoring sessions" until the cows come home! 

And heck, I didn't even factor in the sale price of $15.36 - or bulk sales for those gals out there in Georgetown who may be going into business because of their desires - so the benefits of my help may just keep getting bigger and bigger! No pun intended!

Of course, there is no need to thank me. Although, I'm sure that the parents of those who I have helped appreciate my assistance.

Now getting back to being serious with this story.

This is just my opinion, but I really believe that if a woman needs to spend $3000.00 in 3 years on condoms because she has that huge of a sexual appetite - then that woman is not a "slut" like Rush Limbaugh said.

When I was in College, shameful as it was, yes there was a female student who was in fact known as "the campus slut." She got that reputation for sleeping with 4 different guys in a year. That's right, just four in a year! Who knows what kind of name they would 've had to come up with if others would have known that she spends $1000.00 a year on contraceptives?

But this new revelation of what's going on at Georgetown University goes way beyond just promiscuity. This moves way pass the extent of getting a bum rap that garners a guy or a gal a bad reputation. And yes, I also new a guy in college who was a known as a "campus slut." But this goes beyond that!

No, I believe that anyone who spends $3,000.00 on condoms goes way beyond being saddled with a horrible reputation as "the campus slut."

Fact is, after taking the financial numbers that Sandra Fluke has presented in her testimony into account, by looking at that kind of money, with knowing that Sandra Fluke said she spent "practically an entire summer’s salary" - just on contraceptives - well, then I really believe that she might qualify as someone with real problems.

This would be in the realm of someone who has, as she said, "critical health care needs."

Seriously, if I were a parent of a young women who said that she might be having to "struggle financially" because she can't get free condoms - I would definitely be concerned.

That's just the way I see it!

Story by Tom Correa

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 2

In Part 1, I talked about Smith & Wesson of the 1800's.

Smith & Wesson first designed a double-action revolver in 1872 as a variation of their very successful Model 3 that they offered to the Russian government.

Back in those days, a double-action revolver was called a "self-cocker."

Their commercial introduction of a S&W double-action did not come until 1880 with a series of small-frame, 18-ounce, five-shot top-break .38 S&W and .32 S&W revolvers.

These exposed-hammer, top-break, pocket-size, double-action revolvers were a scaled down version of their large Model 3.  And yes, they were among the most popular guns Smith & Wesson ever built. Nearly a million total were sold before they were discontinued in 1919. 

Over the years Smith & Wesson has been there to furnish the military, the police, and the private citizen with a wide assortment of choices in fine firearms.

My favorite Smith & Wesson of the late 1800s happens to be the Smith & Wesson Model 10 Military & Police revolver. Its full name was Smith & Wesson .38 cal Hand Ejector Military and Police Model of 1899 Model 10. 

When first sold, this .38 caliber revolver shot a big 200 grain bullet which of course meant that it had plenty of stopping power. It was called the "Hand Ejector" because, unlike the famous S & W break opens, the Model 10 has a swing cylinder that enables the user dump the expended rounds with just one hand.

When I was a young boy on my grandfather's ranch in Kunia, Hawaii, on Oahu. The Model 10 that I shot belonged to my grandfather. It was the first pistol that I'd ever shot, and yes, I instantly feel in love with it.

It is not the most powerful or the most accurate revolver, but the greatness about the Model 10 is its simplicity and versitility.

It is simple, basic, and extremely reliable - which of course are the three things I enjoy in old style firearms. It has a fixed-sight, takes six rounds, and has a fluted cylinder.

It is no frills revolver that was designed to be drawn and fired quickly, not have sights that would snag or catch on clothing, and it can be carried for close-combat defense uses. As for plinking with it at cans like I did at my grandfather's ranch, well it was just a lot of fun to shoot.

The Smith & Wesson Model 10 was first known as the Smith & Wesson Military & Police. Then later, it was known as the Smith & Wesson Victory Model. After that, it became simply known as the M&P Model 10, and finally just the Model 10.

Smith & Wesson struck gold on this design.

Today Smith & Wesson's Model 10 revolver is still being made. And yes folks, this revolver has the distinction of being the most successful revolver of all time.

Friends, this pistol has been is production steadily since 1899 with very few changes. It has been available with barrel lengths of 2 inches, 2 and half inches, 3 inches, 4 inches, 5 inches, and 6 inches. I believe that the 5 and 6 inch barrel lengths were made for special contracts.

If this pistol doesn't sound like the perfect pistol, well some 6 Million have been produced over the years, making it the most popular center-fire revolver of the 20th century.

That, my friends, is a record not topped by any revolver on record. And yes, as a handgun it is only surpassed by the amount of semi-automatic 1911s produced.

By 1914, with the success of the Model 10, even the British government wanted it.

But yes, they wanted it in their standard .455 caliber.  The Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector 2nd Model .455 Webley caliber revolver was created.

Colt's New Service double-action was already being used in Great Britain. The British liked the solid frame, double action design with a swing out cylinder. Colt's New Service model revolver was the company's large frame, heavy caliber offering from 1898 to 1944. The Colt proved extremely popular with military and law enforcement again chambered in the hefty .455 caliber round. 

In contrast to the Colt New Service, which had originally been offered in .455 among other chamberings, the Smith & Wesson .455 Hand Ejector of the First Model was specifically manufactured to meet the needs of a military organization.  In this case, the British.

The 1st Model came with a 6.5" barrel, a blue finish, with a shrouded ejector rod. The 2nd Model had no shroud on the ejector rod and a lighter weight barrel. From what I've read, today these are prized by collectors.

The 1st and 2nd Models were very popular with the British. In fact, the British purchase many during World War I and into World War II.

Of course, many different models in a variety of calibers and barrel lengths have come out over the years. Smith & Wesson dominated the double-action market for years.

When talking about the history of Smith & Wesson, there are many many very note worthy Models. Among the most famous was the Model 1911 .22 caliber Target Pistol, the Model 1917 in .45ACP, the Model 19 .357 magnum California Highway Patrol model, the Model 13 in .357 magnum with a 3inch barrel, and of course the snub nosed Chief's Special.    

Of course, one of the most famous Smith & Wesson revolvers has to be the Model 29 revolver with the 6 inch barrel in .44 magnum. Yes, the "Dirty Harry" pistol.

I bought a Model 29 .44 mag to take on a Bear Hunt as a backup piece to my .45-70 Government 1895 Marlin lever-action rifle.

Well, the truth is that I never went on that hunt. But, I did keep that pistol.

For me, it is too much gun to take out of the safe and go plinking tin cans with. It is something special among revolvers and I hope the friend that I gave it to as a birthday present appreciates it. I think it will serve him well for many years to come.

In 1964, Smith & Wesson passed out of the hands and subsequent control of the Wesson family. It was a time when several conglomerates took control of Smith & Wesson.

But the sale of Smith & Wesson did not stop it's growth, or its desire to branch out into other fields besides firearms. 

Then in 1987, yes, a British company by the name of Tomkins PLC bought Smith & Wesson. 





1980s S&W Advertisment

Those British folks owned Smith&Wesson through some tough times for the gun industry. The anti-Gun groups became much stronger in those years, and of course the United States elected it's first openly anti-Gun President in the way of Bill Clinton.

Just a little over a year into his first term, Bill Clinton went after the gun industry full force with threats of lawsuits and over-regulation.

Then came the Brady Bill that banned many firearms just based on their looks.

The passage of the Brady Bill cost Bill Clinton his Democrat Party in Congress. After two years in office, his policies at offended the American public to the point of their voting out his Democrat majority in Congress.

In many ways, Bill Clinton made history by losing the Congress. The Democrats had ruled Congress through 40 years of Liberal control.

Pro-Gun Conservatives took control of Congress, but that didn't stop the Clinton Administration from attacking an American's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. This time, instead of going after a citizen's right to own firearms, the Clinton Administration went after firearms and ammunitions manufacturers.

As a direct result of threats and pressure, in March 2000, Smith & Wesson, which was owned by British company Tomkins PLC, was the only gun maker to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration. It did this in order to avoid the huge costs involved in lengthy lawsuits.

Smith & Wesson's problems only just started after they signed that agreement.

It was a horrible time for a private company like Smith & Wesson. The Federal government decided to place all sort of unwarranted demands on that privately owned company. The demands came in the shape of numerous "unrealistic" safety and design standards, and with imposed limits on the company's ability to sell and distribute their products.

Then came the public backlash!

Many in the public saw Smith&Wesson as making a deal with the Devil. The agreement was not at all accepted by the gun owning public. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith&Wesson by refusing to buy their new products.

What followed the boycotts was a flooding of used S&W firearms on the gun market, of all sorts of used S&W guns. And yes, it nearly ruined the company for good!

After a 40% drop in sales, the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants and lay off over 800 employees.

Believe it or not, the success of the boycott lead the Clinton Administration to order the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an anti-Trust investigations of all sorts of groups including the NRA and others. The investigations were initiated under the Clinton administration specifically targeting gun dealers and Gun Rights Groups, but it was subsequently dropped under President George W. Bush.

The agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended when they sold Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, now called the Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation, publicly renounced the Clinton anti-gun agreement it signed with the Clinton Administration

Their action was received positively by the firearms community, but the company was less than half of it's former self.

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith&Wesson Corp. from Tomkins PLC for $15 Million, just a fraction of the $112 Million originally paid for by Tomkins PLC. Yes, this returned Smith & Wesson's ownership to America.

Saf-T-Hammer assumed $30 Million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to $45 Million. Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of gun locks and other firearms safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith&Wesson firearms in compliance with the 2000 agreement.

The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith&Wesson in 1999 because of supposed disagreement with the policies at Tomkins PLC.

After the purchase, Bob Scott became the President of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the world as an American firearms maker.

On 15 February 2002, the name of the newly formed entity was changed to Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. But of course, most folks will always know them as simply Smith & Wesson.



A Great Choice
for Concealed Carry

Today they produce some of the finest pistols, both revolvers and semi-autos, as well as rifles and everything in between.

From handcuffs to pocket knives, boots, clothing, tactical and hunting gear, the S&W logo seems to be everywhere these days. And yes, it is great to see!



When talking to those of us who own one, most will likely just refer to their pistol as a "Smith!" And no different than it was a hundred and fifty years ago, a "Smith" is a great insurance policy against bad guys.

Smith & Wesson has a long record of proving itself as one of the premier firearms manufacturers in the world. I'm glad they are a success story, they have had a tough road. Sometimes it was their stubbornness to adapt and change that lead them to lose valuable opportunities.

A lot of companies out there can learn a great deal by seeing where and how Smith &Wesson righted itself to get back on the road to being a successful company.

Next month, I hope to finish Part 3 where I go into Smith & Wesson's history of the semi-automatic pistol market. And yes, to answer one email that I've already recieved on this topic, I promise that I will try to research Smith & Wesson's tactical rifles as well.

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 1

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 3

Smith & Wesson - A Tough Success Story - Part 4

Story by Tom Correa

Random Shots! Gitmo Soccer Classic, Big Reward, Israel Suspicious, and more Aliens?

First Shot!

No Word Yet On The First Annual Gitmo Soccer Classic
 In January, President Obama offered a new Pentagon strategy that cuts billions of dollars for defense over the next decade and will "turn the page on a decade of war."

Obama said that America's military will be reshaped over time, saying, the reality of the U.S. economy is forcing the Defense Department to look at its strategy in an all-new way, even as he insisted that strategy will determine the force structure, "not the other way around."

On Jan. 5, 2011: President Obama announced cuts to the growth in the defense budget in a rare appearance by a president at the Pentagon briefing room.

"We have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength in the world. That includes putting our fiscal house in order," the president said.

Calling the "very serious debt and deficit problem here at home" a national security risk, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking after the president, said curbing the growth in the defense budget from its expected $487 billion in increases over the next decade doesn't mean choosing between national and fiscal responsibilities.

Panetta said, "The president has made clear, and I've made clear, that the savings that we've been mandated to achieve must be driven by strategy and must be driven by analysis, and must not be driven by numbers alone."

The U.S. will change its investments, he said, noting that the new structure will be presented to Congress in the president's budget to be presented in the coming weeks.

Among the changes, Panetta announced, would be the size of some branches of the Armed Services.

"The Army and Marines Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large-scale, long-term military operations that have dominated military priorities and force generations over the past decades," Panetta said, adding that forces will have to become more flexible and adaptable to conflicts around the globe.

Panetta said the U.S. will focus its security more on challenges from the Asia-Pacific and Middle-East and it must manage the rising cost of health care for military families even as the Pentagon pledges to uphold its commitment to troops.

Panetta said, in some cases, investment may increase in special operations forces; in new technologies, like unmanned systems; in space and cyberspace capabilities; and on quick mobilization techniques.

Obama rejected assertions that the U.S. will be forced into retreat. He added that the budget will still be growing, even if more slowly.


"We have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong -- and our nation secure --with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined."

That's not really a truth figure, especially when you consider the huge military build up in countries like China who is building a fleet of 11 Aircraft Carriers and 200 additional warships at last report, Russia who has just started resurrecting its military, and North Korea who building and sell nukes to anyone who will buy their technology - like say Iran. But then I guess, Obama and the left always seems to conveniently leave those facts out when they are cutting the American military.

Panetta did say that there will be trade-offs, and they will be tough for some, but some of it has to be done to avoid "sequestration," the automatic cuts scheduled for 2013 that resulted after "super committee" lawmakers couldn't agree on a plan to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $1.2 trillion.

Of course, since January when this all came out, Americans have found out that one priority for the Defense Department that Secretary Leon Panetta didn't report was the spending of the equivalent of 1/3 of the funds allocated for military family housing on a new Soccer Field for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

Since all of the cuts were outlined in January, why did they keep building the Soccer Field throughout both January and February?

And no, there is no word yet on when the First Gitmo Soccer Classic will be held. But yes, I really do think that President Obama and Secretary Panetta should be there at the Grand Opening of Gitmo's New Soccer Field.

Hell, the damn thing cost $744,000 of American Taxpayer dollars!



A Big Reward Is Being Offered For Information On Arsonists

In January, a so-called "Animal Rights group," who destroyed 14 big rig trucks valued at $2 Million. The fire took place at the Harris Ranch feedlot in Coalinga, California.

Please understand, these Jerkweeds are Domestic Terrorist.

Immediately following the fire an "anonymous" Amimal Rights group issued a statement. These were the Jerkweeds who torched the trucks.

They said that they were Animal Rights "activists," and they described their terroist attack in detail. Tey gave detailed information as to just how they carried out the crime. It was information that the Fresno County Sheriff's Office did not disclose to the public.

Now a $100,000 Reward is being offered by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office for information leading to the arrest of those terrorists responsible for the January fire.

Right now, the scumbags who did the fire are only arsonist. But if, if someone was asleep in one of the sleeper compartments - then the scumbags would be wanted for murder.

It is a sick mind that starts fires. It just proves that the Liberal Left Animal Rights nutcases are just sick!

Third Shot!

Israel Suspicious of Obama?

If they are, then thank God Israel has common sense!

It was reported that the Israelis don't plan to notify the Obama Administration if a decision is made to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

From what I've read, Israeli officials said that if they do decide that a strike is necessary, they would keep the White House in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be "held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack."

But no, I don't believe it.

Supposedly the Obama Administration has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program.

The problem, as I see it, is that Iran has had absolutely no setbacks at all since starting on the road to gain a Nuclear Weapon. So to me, if the Israelis do this - well, then at least something is being done to stop it from happening.

Israel doing something about this problem, really doing something about the problem instead of just paying it lip service, is 100% better than the do nothing attitude of the Obama Administration.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred during World War II with the Nazi use of the V1 Flying Bombs.

The V-1 flying bomb, which was also known as the Buzz Bomb or Doodlebug, was in fact an early pulse-jet-powered predecessor of today's Cruise Missiles.

Because of their threat, America and Great Britain teamed up to put them out of business. They realized that that time was not on their side. Something needed to be done before the Nazi war machine would arm this weapon with bigger bombs and more accurate target location devices.

Our leaders during World War II knew that they needed to knock them out to buy more time. Buying time in that maybe the war would be over by the time the Nazis rebuilt, or maybe there would be a coup and sane people would be installed as leaders of Germany.

Operation Crossbow was created to do just that and take out the launching sites. It was the code name of the World War II campaign against all phases of the German long-range weapons program.

It specifically targeted research and development sites, manufacturing, transportation, and their launch sites. It also targeted missiles in flight.

Besides the V1, V-2 facilities were also bombed. This was including smaller facilities such as V-2 storage depots and fuel plants. Like the Nazi V-1, the best defence against the V-2 was to destroy it's infrastructure.

The Germans would never be able to rebuild because of the damage made to that weapon's infrastructure. It would have taken Germany too much time to rebuild and complete another program of long range weapons.

At the time, America was a different place. We had a desire to win and overthrow dictatorships bent on slaughtering thousands - if not millions. We had elected people in our government not afraid of the consequence of doing what is right for our people and the world.

In those days, the White House worked hand in hand with the British government. We understood that without question, Great Britain was our greatest ally in war and in peace. We had shared goals and cooperation was usually worked out.

Today, the White House has demonstrated a policy of selling out friends like Great Britain. It does not surprise me that Israel would not notify the Obama administration. Like Operation Crossbow in World War II, we must hit the enemy so hard that it takes him years to redevelop, rebuild, and reestablish an infrastructure for such a program of say launching nuclear weapons.

If I were a Jew, I wouldn't trust the Obama administration not to alert the Iranians of the pending attack. Maybe I'm too cynical when it comes to this administration, but I really believe that they would sell out anyone for their own gain.

Maybe it is the fact that the Obama administration turned over Great Britain's secrets - including its nuclear capabilities - to Russia in order to secure a New START Treaty. Maybe it's that that makes me think that

Israel is better off not notifying the Obama White House if it plans to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, the Israelis might find themselves in the same position as Great Britain - betrayed by someone thought to be a friend.

Last Shot!


OK, the Aliens are here!

Yes, on the History Channel, on an episode of their show Ancient Aliens entitled "Aliens and Mega Disasters," their staff found a way to link the US military, something called "Environmental Warfare Technology," and supposed "Alien Technology."

Since I don't usually watch this junk at all, I was surprised at what I found out. According to what the show is trying to "imply," the U.S. military posses "Alien Technology."

And no, I don't mean the kind of Alien Technology that it takes to dig tunnels under the U.S.-Mexican border completely unseen by Federal Agents. Yes, that's where the Federal Agents all look the other way until it is finished.

No, this is about something called "Alien Technology" from the little green men type of spacemen. Now, what this so-called "technology" is supposed to be is completely unknown - and unproven - but the show infers that the U.S. military has it! Whatever it is!

I'm willing to bet the farm that that is a great surprise to all of the Military Research and Development Labs across the country, but then again it is TV isn't it!

What's bad is that someone out there is really going to believe this BS. Someone out there is probably going to swallow what the show implies as the "truth'.

The show infers that the U.S. military actually created the 2010 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, and implies that they did the same thing in 2011 to create the 9.9 quake that wrecked havoc in Japan.

I personally love the way they say that they have "evidence." Oh, give me a break!

Everyone knows that Aliens are real! They're just not from Outer Space!

Story by Tom Correa

Guantanamo Detainees Get $744,000 Soccer Field

Can you imagine this?

I was absolutely shocked when I read that our Department of Defense spent $744,000 to build a new Soccer Field for the Terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

The first word of this BS came out on Tuesday, February 28th, and I was absolutely floored! This is just insane! Everyone should be writing their Congressman or women screaming for answers! 

The news story said that "at a time of record deficits, a new soccer field for detainees at Camp 6 in Guantanamo Bay is just getting the finishing touches - at a cost of $750,000 to Taxpayers."

Well, the Soccer Field cost $744,000 of Taxpayer money - not $750,000 as first reported. This is an important detail. And yes, you will not be happy when you find out why.

Believe it or not, the Defense Department made the new Soccer Field the highlight of a tour of the detention camp for Reporters. The reporters, just so happened, were at the facility covering the arraignment in a Military Court of Majid Khan, a detainee at Guantanamo.

Building the Soccer Field began in April 2011, and is due to finish this spring. The detainees will now have 3 Recreation Facilities at Camp 6.

In addition to an Indoor Recreation Field and the existing Outdoor Recreation Field, the new Soccer Field is half the size of an American Football Field.

It was built by the Department of Defense because Soccer is such a popular sport with the Detainees.

Amazing way of thinking huh? And here I was under the impression that Guantanamo Bay Prison Facilities were really Prison Facilities.

What a bunch of BS. This isn't Hard Time. This is the epitome of Federal Correction Facilities known as Club Feds. 

The new Soccer Field was specially constructed so that the detainees "have maximum access" to it. That means that they can have access to it about 20 hours a day without being bothered by pesky guards.

That's right, special passageways were designed into the construction of the new Soccer Field to allow the detainees an ability to pass into the new recreation yard without being escorted. I guess the guards in Gitmo have better things to do, then to just monitor and escort prisoners -- Oops! I mean detainees!

Also according to the report, on the tour, a Military Police representative who asked not to be identified by name said allowing high levels of activity outdoors helped reduce behavioral problems at the Camps, and it also limited the amount of interaction between detainees and the guards.

I find this absolutely incredible! Here I thought that we were making life rough on those terrorist Jerkweeds so that we'd get information from them regarding future attacks and such.

I really believe that with the way that these detainees are living in Gitmo, I can't see why they'd bother giving anyone any information at all. They don't have to turn over information, they are living well!

And if you don't think so, then please compare their Communal Setting with Recreation Areas and no guards annoying them to how they would be living if they were in their own country's custody.

So now fast forward to today, March 3rd.

Fox News reports that at least four House members and one staffer from the Senate appropriations committee have pushed the Department of Defense for answers on the new Soccer Field for detainees at Camp 6 in Guantanamo Bay.

Fox News first reported on the $750,000 controversial project on Tuesday.

And please remember that the correct amount is $744,000 - that is a very important detail to this story. And yes, who'll find out why in a minute.

And no, you won't be happy to hear about why it is so important.

So Congressman Dennis A. Ross, R-Fla., is now introducing a bill called the "NO FIELD ACT" that would penalize the Department of Defense and cut the 2013 budget by $744,000 - which is the real price tag for the Camp 6 Soccer Field.

"This may be the poster child for this election as to what's wrong with this country," Ross told Fox News in an interview from Tampa.

"We're talking about a significant amount of money spent for Terrorist detainees at a camp that we are told is supposed to be closed," he said.

Remember that President Obama made a Campaign Promise to his minion that he would close the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay. But after hearing about this, his supporters might not want that Club Fed closed.

Then Congressman Ross said that the message from voters was clear. "I have heard from my constituents, 'please tell us this is not true,' you're asking us to contribute and is this the fair share the President is talking about?"

On the House floor this week, Congressman Ted Poe, R-Tx., underscored, what he portrayed, as the lunacy of the project.

"While American soldiers are killed in Afghanistan," Poe said, "the U.S. government is getting ready for its grand opening of the Soccer Field."

"A swanky high-dollar soccer field for criminal Terrorist detainees at Gitmo. And of course, Americans are picking up the $750,000 tab for the recreation facilities for these criminals," he said.

Then went on to say, "These radicals should be doing Hard Time, not Soccer Time. Our government has no business building this tropical Caribbean recreation facility for terrorists. It is disrespectful and insulting to all who are victims of these killers. What's next at this terrorist playground? A tiki hut and bar on the beach?"

As I stated earlier, the Guantanamo Bay Camp 6 new Soccer Field is about half the size of an American Football Field. It has special passages that allow detainees to go from the detention center to the outdoors - without guards or military escorts of any sort.

The 28,000-square-foot field includes a Soft Walking Track, and it is scheduled to be open for Terrorist detainees to use after bathrooms and goal posts are added.

OK, now here comes the time when a career politician is asked if he knew that his department is spending $744,000 on a Soccer Field for Terrorist detainees"?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was asked about the project at this week's House budget hearing.

Congressman Huelskamp, R-Kan., asked him, "I had a constituent that contacted me today about a News item. Did you know that apparently our federal taxpayers are paying for a $750,000 Soccer Field at Gitmo? Is that something that Department of Defense knew about?"

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, having heard the question twice, said he was not familiar with the project.

Well guess what! Someone must have known about it! The thing didn't get authorized on its own!

In an absolutely strange statement on the reason for the new $744,000 Soccer Field, Rear Admiral David Woods, who is the Navy's Commander at Guantanamo, who oversees the camps, actually had the nerve to blame "the high cost of the Soccer Field on the need to ship equipment and materials to the remote Navy base."

I don't know if it's on purpose or by mistake, but somehow Admiral Woods seems to be missing the point all together. 

Especially when he added that "their mission is to keep the detainees under safe conditions that provide socialization. Outdoor recreation has encouraged good behavior from detainees which improves the working conditions for the guards."

It amazes me that an Admiral in the United States Navy does not see a problem with furnishing a state of the art Soccer Field to Terrorists.

It bothers me that the Navy feels that they need to "provide socialization" for Terrorists and criminals. And yes, I'm really surprised that the Navy is concerned with using an incentive program for Terrorist in the form of Outdoor Recreation.

These are supposed to be detainees, prisoners, Terrorists. Why is there a need to provide them with luxury items as a "reward" while they are being held.  Where did this insane concept come from of providing socialization and outdoor recreation to "encourage" good behavior ?

On a tour of the camps, Navy Commander Tamsen Reese said that most of the detainees were now housed in Camp 6 and they were used to communal living in an open air camp because they followed the rules.

"What the commander here is trying to do is make sure that we continue to maintain the same standard that we've had here and recognizing again that when the detainees moved from 4 to 6 this was one of, and again this was the first Communal Camp, this was one of the things the detainees enjoyed the most was the large Recreation Area," Reese told reporters.

Yes, unless I'm very wrong here, I believe the Navy Commander was actually trying to say that the reason for the $744,000 Soccer Field is because "this was one of the things the detainees enjoyed."

Now does that sound as crazy to you as it does me?

As far as I'm concerned, who cares what those Jerkweeds enjoy?

Since when is it the Mission of the Defense Department and the United States Navy to provide Terrorist detainees with perks and things they "enjoy"?

I simply can't imagine where that sort of thinking comes from!

I don't understand or agree with either Rear Admiral Woods or Commander Tamsen Reese.  I simply don't understand their way of thinking.  I don't agree with rewarding Terrorist detainees for following the rules.

The concept goes way over the top. I simply don't agree with providing Terrorist with luxury items like a new Soccer Field because they will "enjoy" it. 

To me, that whole concept is nuts!

Now, regarding the amount of $744,000 of Taxpayer money. The price tag of $744,000 is significant.

Why is that figure so vital to this story? Well, it's because if that amount was any higher - it couldn't have been hidden out of view!

Yes, as a Pentagon spokesman said, anything over $749,000 needs Congressional approval. By them making sure it was under that amount, they could hide the project from any sort of scrutiny.

So by the Navy and the Department of Defense making sure that their project to build the Terrorist detainees a new Soccer Field comes in under that $749,000 mark - they will be able to get away with it - without anyone ever knowing about it!

Not one Conservative, who I know personally, talk with, or get e-mail from, wants to cut the Defense Budget. A few, who I know, talk about wanting to cut the waste in the Defense Budget.

Well friends, this is waste! And because those in charge knew that it would come under investigation if they spent more than $744,000 - to me, if it ain't out and out criminal - then it is most definitely skirting the law.

What makes me angry about this is that whenever Congress or the President starts talking about cuts to the Defense Department's Budget - the Defense Department reacts with threats of cuts to troop strength, doing away with whole units, and getting rid of successful weapon's systems.

According to Wikipedia, "The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense, or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any defense-related expenditures.

This military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps."

In the 2010 United States Federal Budget, the Department of Defense was allocated a base budget of $533.7 billion.  The new Soccer Field in Gitmo cost almost $1million. That is a big figure when we're in the economic pinch that we're in. 

But friends, three quarters of $1 million taken out of a $533 billion budget is a big figure anytime. And yes, it becomes even bigger when we consider that the Department of Defense only spent about $3 billion on all of the Family Housing for all of the married personnel in all of our services combined in 2010.

Essentially, someone in the Defense Department took about a huge bite out of the budget for Family Housing - and used it to build a Soccer Field for Terrorist prisoners who want to kill us.

This is not only irresponsible wasteful spending, but this is blatant dishonesty because of the way they worked this just to keep their spending on the project a secret from anyone who might have a say so on whether it is waste or not. 

It's all very crooked! Slick dealing by underhanded people is what it all amounts to!

They, meaning the people who built this $744,000 Soccer Field, knew that they needed to keep it below the $749,000 spending mark to get away with it.

That's how criminal minds think! They know full well that they are breaking the law, and are very aware of how to get around being caught.

And they would have - if it weren't stumbled on merely by accident. I don't think the person giving the tour to those reporters actually realized the impact of his showing off their new Soccer Field to those Reports. I think he thought it was all above board.

Because of this, I say cut the Defense Department of those needed funds that they spent so frivolously - and yes, fire those responsible for having this built.

After that, I say we take a hard look at the kinds of luxuries that we the American Taxpayer are affording Terrorist detainees.  We need to evaluate what we are doing in Gitmo!

If its just a Communal Setting with multiple Recreation Areas and a New Soccer Field - then we ought to close that Club Fed facility and ship those Jerkweeds to civilian facilities where they well not be treated as wonderfully by bleeding hearts who want them to "enjoy" themselves.

Maybe we should ship them back to their native countries and pay for their incarceration in their prisons? I can promise you that these Jerkweeds would not be cuddled and pampered with Soccer Fields and no contact with the guards!

Lastly, according to reports, it not surprising, but so far Democrats have been silent on the issue.

And believe it or not, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who advocate for detainee rights, had no comment.

I'm thinking that that's probably because the American public is now getting a better idea of what the Federal government considers detention centers and prisons for Terrorists who have made it their mission to kill us.

THIS COST ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS $$$

 Story by Tom Correa