RANDOM SHOTS! Sofia Vergara, Available U.S. Oil, Bank of America Now Anti-Gun, Jon Stewart Hates Christians, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Bank of America now has Anti-Gun Policy and Political Agenda

Some speculate that it's because of its close ties to the Obama White House. Some say it's because they want to get on the good side of the Obama administration in their second term. Some believe that Bank of America's last bailout was bigger than ever, and they may need another.

For whichever reason, Bank of America now has an Anti-Gun Political Agenda.

Case and point, the new Bank of America Anti-Gun Policy was revealed recently when the McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International - who have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years - were told by Bank of America to take their business somewhere else!

The reason: It is an American firearms manufacturer.

That's right, Bank of America is now joining the Anti-Gun Lobby with a Political Agenda in place. And yes, they have started by telling firearms companies that their business is no longer welcome.

Though, according to Operations Director Kelly McMillan, his company has never been late on a payment and has never bounced a check - and the debt outstanding on its line of credit is at 61 percent - at Bank of America's request, the McMillan group of companies would soon be paying off its credit line and closing its accounts.

On Facebook, McMillan described a meeting at his office with Ray Fox, a Bank of America Business Banking Senior Vice President. What was originally scheduled as an "account analysis" meeting, quickly became a political brawl.

Kelly McMillan, said that the Bank of America Vice President "spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories."

"At this point I interrupted him," McMillan said, and asked, "Can I possibly save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business - you no longer what my business."

Bank of America Business Banking Senior Vice President simply replied, "That is correct."

McMillan said he now plans to move his company’s account to "a more Second Amendment-friendly bank" as soon as it can be done.

He recalls telling the Bank of America executive that he planned to tell the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and his other gun-loving friends "that Bank of America is not firearms-industry-friendly."

"You have to do what you must" was the Bank of America representative's reply, then said. "We have to assess the risk of doing business with a firearms related industry."

The McMillan group of companies may have the last laugh: It is considering no longer accepting Bank of America credit cards for purchases.

As for me, I will boycott Bank of America and every other company that is Anti-Second Amendment. To me, being Anti-Gun is being Anti-Second Amendment - and being Anti-Second Amendment is Anti-American at it worse.

Because of that, I'm letting as many friends and relatives know about this. So far, my wife and friends who have an account with Bank of America have said that they are now considering closing their accounts.

I recommend every American boycott Bank of America, and any other companies that does not support the Constitution or the rights of American citizens.

I absolutely refuse to do business with companies like Bank of America who refuse to do business with American firearms manufacturers - and subsequently American citizens who exercise our rights under the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms.

I refuse to do business with anyone or any company who has joined the Anti-Second Amendment movement.

Whether I boycott the movies of Hollywood types who are part of the Anti-Gun Agenda, or I boycott corporations who have joined the Anti-Gun ilk, I do not want to give a single dime to those who want to take away my rights.

That's just the way I am!

SECOND SHOT!

Grandma Kicks Butt In Shootout!

Police in Georgia say a grandmother foiled a robbery attempt by two armed men by getting into a shootout with them, injuring one man.

Lulu Campbell just dropped off her grandson at her daughter's house early Saturday morning when someone demanded money outside her car, the whole time threatening to shoot her. Then, believe it or not, Campbell says the man shot at her - but missed!

Bad move on the assailant's part because the 57-year-old Grandma fired back - striking him in the chest.

Her truck sustained eight bullet holes in the hood, one in the grill. Both front side windows were also destroyed.

The second man fled after she shot at him. Campbell, who owns convenience stores and gas stations, is always armed.

Police say 32 year old Brenton Lance Spencer has been hospitalized and was charged with aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery.

Lulu Campbell is reported to have said she'd do it again if messed with!

This old gal is someone who I can definitely respect. She's does the job that needs to get done!

THIRD SHOT!

Jon Stewart's Anti-Christian Attitude Is No Joke

A writer recently penned:

"The Daily Show starring Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report starring Stephen Colbert, presents young people with a false, cynical view of important political, cultural, and religious issues and events of the day. Stewart, Colbert, and their writers use ridicule, sarcastic cynicism, and sometimes even obscenity to mock their more conservative political and cultural opponents, including traditional Christianity and Christian leaders."

He couldn't be more right!

Media Research Center (MRC), a media watchdog group, is challenging political satirist Jon Stewart to be an "equal opportunity bigot."

Stewart offended millions of American Christians by placing the Nativity across female genitals in a picture shown on his show. The Daily Show host Jon Stewart ran the lewd photo of a woman with the Nativity scene because he was trying to make some sick political point about Christians and Conservatives.

In response, Media Research Center (MRC) president Brent Bozell went on Twitter to dare Stewart to desecrate either the Koran or the Torah in the same way that he offended millions of Christians by using the Nativity scene in such a crude fashion.

The MRC's Dan Gainor asserts that his group is certainly not for the desecration of any faith, but says Bozell's challenge was made knowing that Stewart's type of comedy applies only to anti-Christian bigotry.

"This is classic Jon Stewart: will attack Christians, will make fun of something that's Christian," Gainor offers. "And then you look at that network - Comedy Central is one that has run and hid from possibly even vaguely offending Muslims."

Gainor believes the liberal media's attacks on Christians during the early part of 2012 have been unprecedented. "Just this year has probably been the worst, most anti-Christian year in media I think quite possibly ever," he decides.

Yes it's happening, and it seems to be getting worse every time I look at what's being reported in today's news.

FOURTH SHOT!

U.S. has 26% of World Oil Supply

The report said that Republican Senators are accusing President Obama of pushing a "less-than-honest" claim about the scarcity of domestic oil, after a U.S. Geological Survey study showed the United States might actually hold a quarter of the world's untapped oil supply.

Obama enjoys using a much different statistic in speeches.

He said recently, as he has before, that the problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world's oil and we only have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves.

That is a lie!

A new U.S. Geological Survey just released paints a seemingly different picture. The analysis showed the world outside of the U.S. holds 565 billion barrels of undiscovered conventional oil - it was the first such study in 12 years.

The study did not address U.S. resources, but a prior analysis by the Energy Information Administration pegged the country's supply at 198 billion barrels. That works out to 26 percent of the world supply.
Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, say "the 2 percent stat is becoming obsolete."

"Well, there goes President Obama's favorite talking point," Inhofe said in a statement.

"The president's own administration has released a report which reveals that the United States has 26 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional oil resources, and that's not including our enormous oil shale, tight oil and heavy oil resources. This report from the U.S. Geological Survey is vindication for anyone who thought that President Obama's claims - are less than honest."

"President Obama's claims are less than honest" is the way politicians say "Obama is lying again!"

FIFTH SHOT!

Kansas City Homeowners Fight Back ... With Guns!

A report out of Kansas City, Missouri, recently talked about there being two Home Invasions in three days. Now some homeowners in the area are fed up with the violence and lack of respect. They are now fighting back.

On April 9th, a Kansas City woman, who was scared for her life, shot and killed a 17-year-old armed intruder. She says he forced his way inside her home near 58th and Garfield, pointed a gun at her head and put her in a closet.

The young man died Monday afternoon after a woman says she shot him in self-defense after he put a gun to her head and locked her in a closet.

Police say two young men, in their teens knocked on the woman’s door and asked to see a man. When the woman at the house in the 5800 block of Garfield told the men he wasn’t there, police say the men forced their way in, pointed a gun at the woman’s head, and put her in a closet.

While they rummaged through her house, the woman, who is in her 20s says she found the gun that she hides in the closet. She stepped out of the closet and shot one of the men. He stumbled out of the house, into the yard, and collapsed in the front yard, where a neighbor found him.

Police have identified the young man as 17-year-old Trevor Garms of Kansas City, Missouri.

"There was some bloody clothes and he was just shakin’ terribly shaking," said Liz Randle. "And I said, 'Oh. He done got shot,' and his clothes - they came down below his waist - and he was really, really looking awfully bad."

The woman told police the other man, who was dressed in an orange shirt, ran from the scene.
Police say charges are not likely since it appears the woman acted in self-defense.

"Uh yeah. I'd have got him. He come up on your house, he deserve to get shot," said Albert Jordan, another neighbor.

Early Wednesday morning, a similar frightening situation, in Raytown.

Police say two men, one armed with a rifle, the other with a handgun, burst inside a couple’s home and demanded money - then asked for a man, who didn’t live there.

When the home invaders ran before cops arrived, the male homeowner, fired shots at the fleeing pair, who got away. It’s not known if either man was hit. Police are still looking for both men.

"We’re very fed up," said neighborhood watch Captain Dayna Schroeder. "We constantly watch. We take note of whose around."

Schroeder put a mini-surveillance camera in her front yard to watch out for the bad guys.

Back in the Kansas City neighborhood, where the woman says she shot the young intruder in self-defense, Michelle Robinson, a mother of four your children, says she'd pull a pistol to protect her family.

"We're tired of the violence. We're tired of the violence. We're tired of the killings. We're tired of the break-ins, things have got to change," she said.

And yes, it sounds like they're bringing in change by standing up for themselves - and with gun in hand if need be!

SIXTH SHOT!

Why isn't the beating of a White American at the hands of a Black American considered a "Hate Crime"?


Police have arrested Terry Rawls in the beating of a Matthew Owens. It is a case with very little interest on the side of the News Media because it is a White-Alabama, a Ccaucasin- American, being beaten by a mob of Black-Americans, African-Americans.

Matthew Owens

Terry Rawls, 44, has been arrested and was charged with first-degree assault. Rawls and victim Matthew Owens - but now Chad Tucker, a spokesman for the Mobile County District Attorney's Office is trying to play the act down by saying that it had been an ongoing feud dating back to 2009.

Terry Rawls

Matthew Owens, of Mobile, Alabama, was attacked by a group of 20 Blacks at about 8:30 p.m. Saturday.

It took place after Owens told a group of Black teenagers to stop playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive. This is according to Ashley Rains, public information officer for the Mobile Police Department.

After the teenagers left the area, a group of angry Black adults armed with weapons including baseball bats, paint cans and other weapons returned and confronted Owens in his front yard - where upon he was attacked and beaten with the intent to kill him.

Matthew Owens' sister, Ashley Parker, told WKRG that she witnessed the attack and that there were as many as 20 Black assailants. Parker said she overheard one of them say, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."

Of course the Trayvon comment is about Trayvon Martin, who was the 17 year old who attacked a Neighborhood Watch Captain George Zimmerman for no apparent reason.

Zimmerman who found himself overpowered by the younger taller youth felt he was in mortal danger when Trayvon Martin was slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman used deadly force to defend himself and killed his attacker by shooting him.

After a political firestorm fueled by liberal activist, false reports on NBC and other new outlets, Black politicians, Black civil rights activists, and Black-supremacist, seized the tragic event to use it as an opportunity to agitate hatred for whites.

George Zimmerman, who has received death threats and has had a $10,000 Bounty placed on his head by the militant group The New Black Panthers, was charged with second-degree murder in Martin's death.

Zimmerman has made bail, but because he fears for his life - has now had to go into hiding as he awaits his trial.

Black-Americans have already called for Zimmerman's conviction, and some see no satisfactory conviction of Zimmerman as nothing but an excuse that the Black community will need to riot and destroy whole neighborhoods that they live in. Simply because they see anything other then a death penalty conviction as another sign of "racism" in the justice system.

As ridiculous as it sounds, Police Departments across the nation have voiced concern that riots will take place like those that occurred after the O.J.Simpson trial - if anything less than a death penalty conviction for Zimmerman is had.


LAST SHOT!

Beautiful Sofia Vergara refused entry into New York City Nightclub

Years ago, when I was trying to learn Spanish, I used to watch a some of the shows on Univisión - the Spanish language television network.

It was the mid-1990s, and that was when I first saw the very beautiful, very funny, Sofia Vergara.

From 1995 to 1998, she co-hosts along with Fernando Fiore of Fuera de serie ("Out of the Ordinary" or "Over-the-Top"), a travel series that sent her to exotic places around the world. It was telecast on the international Univisión Spanish-language television network, and it made her a star in the Latin American market.

It also gave Vergara television exposure in the United States via the Univisión stations here. She co-hosted the Univisión show A que no te atreves ("I Dare You"), and she appeared as a guest star in the season-four opening of the HBO series Entourage.

Besides runway and catalog modeling work, Sofia Vergara also did independent projects, and she was photographed for posters and swimsuit calendars in 1998, 2000, and 2002.

Besides being one of the most attractive women in entertainment today, she is known for her hard work drive and determination to succeed - attributes that all Americans should admire and respect. 

She has been a wonderful addition to American television. She reminds me of a Latin version of Lucille Ball because her comedic timing is just perfect. With her expressions and messing around with the English language in the same way that Desi Arnaz used to do so back in the 50's on I Love Lucy with his Latina accent - Sofia is wonderful. She's a hoot!

Sofia Vergara was voted #1 on AskMen.com's Top 99 Most Desirable Women of 2012 List.

AskMen.com did ask the question, "Why is Sofia Vergara #1?

Their reply, "When it comes to Colombian imports, none are more in demand than Sofia Vergara these days. The jaw-dropping Modern Family star is one of our favorite things about one of our favorite comedies. Vergara shows off the best cleavage on network TV, and we've never been more jealous of Ed O'Neill. But despite her obvious assets, Vergara's also one very funny woman, lampooning stereotypes with her perfect timing."

So yes, I could hardly believe it when I'd heard that the very beautiful actress Sofia Vergara was refused entry into a New York nightclub all because she did not have an identification to prove that she was indeed 21 years of age.


This is my favoite picture of Sofia: She is simply stunning!



Since she is 39 years old, I guess her being carded was a sort of compliment - if it was weren't for the fact that it became a real problem that ended up with her leaving after being kept out of a party with friends.

You would think that being one of the most famous faces on television is supposed to be a guaranteed passport into the hottest nightspots. But the fact is that the very talented and extremely funny "Modern Family" star Sofia Vergara was refused entry to a trendy New York club because she couldn't prove she was over 21 years of age by a Doorman who had no idea who she was.

And to make matters worse, he wouldn't take the word of others there.

The very beautiful 39-year-old Sofia was stopped by the Doorman on her way into an after show party for the opening night of the Broadway musical Ghost: the Musical.

The actress, who recently hosted Saturday Night Live, was asked to show some form of ID to prove she was aged over 21. When she explained that she did not have any with her, the Doorman refused to allow her into the Ava Lounge at the Dream Midtown Hotel in New York.

A friend is reported to have pleaded with the Doorman, even asking him, "Please. You know who this is, right?" But no dice, the Doorman shook his head and refused to allow her into the party.

Without further hassle, Sofia reportedly just said to heck with it and left without making a fuss. And yes, I can't help but wonder if that Doorman is looking for a new place to work.

The former Colombian model turned actress has become one of the most recognisable TV stars in the last two years thanks to her role on the hit comedy "Modern Family."

And just for the record, Sofia Vergara has been a working Mom since she was 20 years old. Her son Manolo Gonzalez-Ripoll Vergara is now 19 years old.

The almost 40 year old actress and her 19 year old son can both be seen here in a Got Milk ad.

Back in the stone ages when I was doing security work, I remember dealing with event and clubs that had celebrities and sports figures show up. Usually, we had a list of the who's who that might show up. We knew that we were the face of the event or club because we were the first people that our guests met when they arrived.

In all the years of doing security work, at all of the different levels of security, it never ceased to amaze me how the small bit of information would help me do my job.

Knowing that he'd be dealing with celebrities, I think that Doorman should have spent a little less time in the gym and more time doing his homework. Fact is, some celebrities just aren't as nice as Sofia Vergara. Some will raise a Hell and work their damnedest to get you fired.

But I don't think the Doorman at the Ava Lounge at the Dream Midtown Hotel in New York will really have to worry about that in the future - he probably won't be working around  celebs again.

Sofia Vergara and her son Manolo

Story by Tom Correa

Remington Arms Takes On NBC's Anti-Gun Agenda

Remington Arms Company, LLC, headquartered in Madison, North Carolina, designs, produces and sells sporting goods products for the hunting and shooting sports markets, as well as military, government and law enforcement markets.

Remington was founded in 1816 in upstate New York, and yes, the Company is one of America's oldest continuously operating firearms manufacturers.

Remington is the only U.S. manufacturer of both firearms and ammunition products. And yes, it has been producing both going back to the mid-1800s.

Remington is one of the largest domestic producers of shotguns and rifles. Remington Arms Company had revenues in 2004 of approximately $393 Million and it distributes its products throughout America as well as in over 55 foreign countries.

Though this American Company has been a huge part of American History in so many ways, that has not
stopped NBC and the Anti-Second Amendment Movement from attacking Remington Arms.

But friends, Remington is not taking it lying down and is standing strong against NBC's Anti-Gun Political Agenda.

It's true, Remington Arms is standing its ground against NBC, which has been going after the firearms manufacturer for what it deems are flaws that allow Remingtons to be fired without the trigger being pulled.

Despite the fact that Remington and the one lone plaintiff who had a problem came to an agreement, NBC keeps pressing the issue in an attempt to falsely say that Remington is hiding something.

First it was in 2010, NBC made false accusations against Remington for its Model 700. accusations that were ultimately proven complete untrue. Now again NBC is on their Anti-Gun bandwagon.

As recently as on April 11, 2012, Brian Williams again used NBC’s powerful media influence to spread its Anti-Gun Agenda. This time with the claim that the Model 870, Model 1100 and other Remington firearms have a design flaw.

But wait, before NBC aired its latest thinly veiled Anti-Gun Agenda attack, Remington came out with this statement:

"In yet another unwarranted attack on Remington and the firearms industry, NBC will soon air a report about Remington Arms and several of Remington's most popular shotguns and rifles.

In this upcoming story, NBC is using the same producer and reporter who, in 2010, attempted to denigrate our Company and the Model 700, the most popular bolt-­action rifle in the world.

Now they are at it again, only this time they have set their sights on the most popular shotguns in the world, the Remington Models 870 and 1100.

First, they went after 5 Million lawfully owned firearms.

Now, they’re going after over 20 Million firearms.

Gun owners and shooters are all too familiar with NBC’s long history of Anti-Gun reporting.

The Network proved its proclivity for sensational reporting and its aggressive Anti-Gun Agenda in its baseless attack on the Model 700, and its suggestion that the Consumer Product Safety Commission should control the firearms industry.

The previous CNBC story was based on rumors, unsubstantiated claims and misstatements, rather than factual evidence of the reliability and performance of the more than five million Model 700 bolt-­action rifles produced over 50 years.

The misinformation and sensational allegations were clearly addressed by Remington in a point-­by-point rebuttal, to which CNBC never bothered to respond.

We expect the same disregard for the facts and Anti-­Gun sentiment to be repeated in the upcoming NBC story.

Unfortunately, NBC continues to push the agendas of plaintiffs' attorneys and Anti-Gunners, relying on their clearly biased assertions, and upon paid so-­called "experts."

These "experts" have been repeatedly hired by plaintiff’s attorneys to testify against Remington, as well as at least 16 other firearms manufacturers, to suit their own personal and economic agendas.

Model 870 and 1100 owners know the truth.

These shotguns are used extensively under the most demanding conditions.

Tens of billions of rounds have been fired through these firearms, which are valued for their performance and durability by tens of Millions of hunters, shooters, law enforcement and military personnel who have relied on these firearms for over 60 years.

The experiences of these users stand as a sophisticated and time-­tested proof, to the quality and reliability of these firearm platforms.

The facts show that the Model 870 and 1100 are two of the most reliable shotguns ever produced.

Despite the efforts of plaintiffs' attorneys to drum up business against these popular firearms, no litigation is pending against the trigger mechanisms of these firearms and only one such lawsuit has been filed in the last seven years.

When contacted by NBC about this story, Remington provided the Network with a vast amount of information about the true facts of these iconic American firearms and the so-­called "expert" witnesses employed by plaintiffs' attorneys.

Given NBC's long standing relationship with plaintiffs' attorneys and their paid experts, Remington is not surprised that NBC has once again chosen to ignore the facts to push the Network's Anti-­Gun Agenda.

In light of NBC’s inherent bias, Remington declined to participate in an on-­‐camera interview, which would have exposed Remington to NBC’s questionable editing processes.

No biased and sensational media story can diminish the pride that Remington employees take in our Company and its products.

It is disappointing that NBC continues to choose sensationalism over American industry.

Remington's parent company employs nearly 3,000 proud Americans across 11 states, producing firearms and ammunition, 99% of which are Made in the USA.

Hunters and shooters pump approximately $25 Billion annually into the U.S. economy, supporting close to 600,000 domestic jobs, in addition to contributing approximately $2.9 Billion annually directly to wildlife and habitat conservation.

These agenda-­‐driven, sensational stories should be a warning to all lawful and responsible hunters, shooters and gun-owners to remain vigilant and steadfast in defense of our Second Amendment freedoms and the right of all Americans to safely hunt, shoot and protect ourselves and our families."

U.S. Marine in training
armed with a Remington Model 870 Shotgun

After NBC's Anti-Gun report which tried to again assault Remington Arms and its products, Remington came out and responded to say it like it is.

And yes, many agree that it is much more than NBC's so-called concern about gun safety that makes them use the very same witnesses and very same reporters and producers to do their "hit piece" on Remington. It is very apparent that NBC has an Anti-Gun Political Agenda. And though they may try to disguise it, they can't hide their true intentions. It's just too obvious.

Remington's response to the April 11, 2012, NBC attack:

"NBC continues to attack Remington and the firearms industry through sensational and factually inaccurate reporting. On April 11, 2012, Brian Williams again demonstrated NBC’s anti-gun agenda with the claim that the Model 870, Model 1100 and other Remington firearms have a design flaw.

That claim is demonstrably false and Remington stands fully behind the safety and reliability of the most popular shotguns in the world.

It wasn’t enough for NBC to attack over 20 million Remington firearms; they also called the Second Amendment into question by suggesting that there is a need for increased government regulation of firearms.

Model 870 and 1100 owners know the truth – these shotguns are used extensively under the most demanding conditions. Tens of billions of rounds have been fired through these firearms, which are valued for their performance and durability by millions of hunters, shooters, law enforcement and military personnel who have relied on Remington.

As the basis for its attacks, NBC continues to rely upon paid 'experts' who have been repeatedly hired by plaintiff’s attorneys to testify against Remington and at least 16 other firearms manufacturers.

The facts show that the Model 870 and 1100 are two of the most reliable shotguns ever produced – only one lawsuit has been filed in the last seven years and no litigation is pending against the trigger mechanisms of these firearms.

Deceptively editing and ignoring readily available documents and video evidence to drive NBC’s agenda is an all too familiar tactic. Remington stands by the reliability and safety of its firearms and will fully respond to
NBC’s attempt to disparage these iconic American products."

For me, I've had extensive experience with Remington Arms. I've owned a Model 870, a Model 1187, and a Model 740 Bushmaster for years - and yes, I can swear by their reliability.

Back in 2010, we at the American Legion in Glencoe were going to buy a Remington Model 700 rifle to raffle off. As everyone knows, non-profit organizations like the American Legion tries to raise needed funds through raffles and special events.

In 1962, Remington introduced the Model 700 bolt-action sniper rifle.

The rifle instantly became one of Remington's most successful firearms, and quickly lent itself to developments of many sub-variants, including the Remington 700 BDL, Remington 700PSS for police and law enforcement agencies which later renamed 700P, is very popular among law enforcement agencies, and of course the military M24 SWS which was the USA Army standard sniper rifle between 1988–2010 and still serves among other armed forces around the world, such as the IDF.

Other firearms companies designed and manufactured sniper rifles based on the reliable and accurate Remington Model 700 action.

While we, at the Legion, talked about raffling off a Model 700 rifle, one member who is really not very knowledgeable about firearms at all advised us about the NBC report which said the Remington Arms Model 700 was unsafe.

To many of us who know the history and reputation of the Remington Model 700, we figured that this NBC report must obviously be misleading for some reason - and knowing the liberal bias of NBC, it didn't surprise many of us when we talked about it. It is not unusual for the liberal controlled News Media to attack American firearms manufacturers.

Because that uninformed member believed that NBC report, which is commonly known as a "hit piece," we did not raffle off that rifle. Instead, someone very knowledgeable about firearms bought it from us. He made out because the rifle is truly a great rifle.

My example demonstrates what can take place when someone, even an Air Force Veteran who doesn't know much about guns in general, believes what they see on television.

And of course, that goes to the matter of honor and responsibility!

NBC has unlimited access to steer public opinion. With their power comes responsibility. It has a responsibility to not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It has a responsibility to get its facts right. It owes the public, its consumer, a sense of understanding right and wrong when reporting something to the public.

Unlike makers of prescription medications which are held to FDA standards, unlike cattle producers which have to meet USDA standards, unlike our nation's airlines which have to meet FAA standards, the News Media does not have to meet any standards of any organization. The News Media is not regulated, so content is whatever they want it to be.

Because of that, we the American people, the public, their consumers, only have their promise of "self-regulation" and their sense of honor to do the right thing and report honest, true, factually, and responsibly.

To do a report with a political agenda in mind is using its capabilities as nothing less than a malicious and criminal propaganda machine.

And yes, NBC just proves beyond question that the Liberal Media is definitely complicit in the Anti-Gun Agenda.

Story by Tom Correa

One Billion Dollars Is A Lot Of Money!

It is! One Billion Dollars is a great deal of money.

If you have a PH.D., then you already have a leg up on everyone else. Just gather together 278 of your PH.D. type friends and add up all the money that all of you will make during the 40 or so years of your career - and there it is - One Billion Dollars.

Of course if you don’t have a PH.D and consider yourself just an "average" guy, then you will have to work a little harder, a little longer, or maybe just round up an another 590 of your "average" guy friends and again add up all the money that all of you will make during the 40 or so years of your career - and there it is - One Billion Dollars.

If you’re female you will need another 768 girlfriends to reach One Billion Dollars over the course of your accumulated lifetimes.

Of course if you are in the unfortunate position of living below the poverty line, then it will take an entire regiment of folks who are also in the same boat to come up with One Billion Dollars in a lifetime.

When relating to Federal spending, we ultimately have to relate to taxes. So here is the amount of people required to support One Billion Dollars in Federal spending.

That, my friends, is a lot of people!


To get a rough idea of how many Taxpayers would have to take their entire life's eanings to make One Billion Dollars.

Imagine the entire life's eanings of 103,424 people. That's all of the Oregon Ducks fans at the Autzen Stadium combined them with the Indiana Hoosiers at Bloomington's Memorial Stadium. That's how many Taxpayers would be needed to make One Billion Dollars.

How about looking at it like this.


Bloomington Memorial Stadium



Autzen Stadium

Yes, that's a lot of people!

The the car in the picture is a Maybach Landaulet. It costs a Million Dollars. One Billion Dollars will buy you a thousand Maybach Landaulets.

The Le Grand Bleu yacht above costs $90 Million. Some yachts cost as much as $200 million or more.You can buy ten $100 million yachts with One Billion Dollars.

The jet is a Gulfstream G550. You can pick one up for around $40 Million for the base model. For $60 Million, you can buy a top-of-the-line variation. One Billion Dollars will buy you 25 of these.

A home such as this would be available for about $8 Million. With One Billion Dollars, you can buy 125 houses like the one pictured - and that is not out of the question in some parts of our country.

It's real evident that Millions of Dollars here and Millions there, and sooner or later - there are Billions of Dollars spent.

In 2011, a Council of Economic Advisers report claims that the Obama $666 Billion Stimulus Package "raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs."

That means the Obama Stimulus Package cost Taxpayers more than $183,000 per job - and possibly as much as $278,000 per job.

And to make matters worse, another report says that no one really knows where most of the Billions of Dollars in the Obama Stimulus Package went to. No kidding, no one can explain this!

President Obama's White House employs 454 people with an annual cost of $37,121,463. But these figures, which come from the White House, might be false and lower than accurate.
 

The man in the picture is Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and he has cost the American Taxpayers almost One Million Dollars all by himself - actually $860,000 for fiscal year 2012.

That's right, it has been reported that Taxpayers shell out an average of an extra $20,000 a week to allow Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to return to his beautiful California Walnut Farm on the weekends - almost every weekend.

Since becoming Secretary of Defense in July of 2011, Leon Panetta has flown home to spend time at his walnut farm in Monterey, California, 27 times - according to the Pentagon.

Panetta is required by post-9/11 department rules to travel on a military plane with communications equipment, which Defense officials have estimated costs something on the order of $32,000 for each round trip to Monterey and back. The rules require Panetta to compensate the taxpayers for the cost of a commercial plane ticket: about $630.

Of course, $630 wouldn’t get Panetta a private ride on a jet that leaves and returns at times of his choosing, but the Secretary says he "has no choice."

It’s harder to make that argument, though, when you are the one calling for deep cuts in Defense spending and also issue the orders that cause a soldier making $20,000 a year to uproot his family to the other side of the country or separate from them entirely. A Private being shipped to Ft. Bliss doesn’t get to spend his weekends at home, so why should the Secretary of Defense be so special?

The estimated cost for all of Panetta's trips is about $860,000!

Yes, almost One Million Dollars!

Panetta, the cost and nature of whose travels in more than two years as President Obama’s Director of the CIA are classified, faced questions from reporters this last week about the costs related to his desire to fly home every other week to see his family and look after his Walnut Farm.

But today, the questions will come from members of the House Armed Services Committee as Panetta appears for an already scheduled hearing on the state of the civil war in Syria.

This is a very unhappy time for Leon Panetta to be before the House. Not only are his travel expenses rankling deficit hawks, but lawmakers very much want to know about the involvement of elite military members in the prostitution scandal stemming from Obama’s visit to Colombia last week.

The sex scandal questions, though, will be easier for Panetta to answer. He can say that "appropriate steps are being taken" and that "offenders will be punished for any involvement" in the 21-hooker salute that reportedly took place at a resort hotel ahead of Obama’s visit.

Being a career politician is tough work for a jet setting Democrat who crosses the nation at a cost of almost One Billion Dollars to Taxpayers. Explaining why Democrats who are supposed to be the champions of the poor actually allow this sort of bullshit to take place is not going to be easy.

Obama wanted Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense because of his experience as a budget cutter, especially his work cutting Defense spending as Bill Clinton’s Budget Director. Obama has envisioned the chance to spend on his domestic priorities a peace dividend from the end of the ground wars in Iraq and, eventually, Afghanistan.

The Obamas like spending Taxpayer money. Their New York City "Date Night" cost Taxpayers at a quarter of a Million Dollars.

The First Lady's European vacation to Spain in 2010 had one New York Daily News writer trash Michelle Obama as a "modern day Marie Antoinette" for taking such a glitzy vacation while most of the country is struggling to make ends meet.

Michelle Obama's entourage and 40 of her friends stayed at the luxury Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton property often described as one of the world's top 10 hotels. Rates range between $500 and $2,500 a night. That trip alone cost American Taxpayers $375,000.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s trip to South Africa and Botswana in June of 2011 cost Taxpayers well over half a Million dollars, possibly in the range of $700,000 or $800,000, according to an analysis by White House Dossier.

Last Christmas, the President that says he wasn't born with a Silver Spoon in his mouth yet went to of the most expensive private schools hawaii while going up - then went to two of the nation's most expensive Universities which no one has said how he paid for that - cost the Taxpayers $4 Million Dollars for his vacation in Hawaii in 2011. 

GSA Federal Employee Hank Terlaje at work

The Obama administration's GSA scandal has revealed that they spent almost One Million Dollars, actually $823,000 on a "conference" in Las Vegas.

So all in all, it's not that strange for the Obama administration to have a Secretary of Defense that cost the American Taxpayer almost One Million Dollars - just so that he can get to and from Washington D.C. and California to his check his walnuts.

Leon Panetta's proposed cuts and calls for "a much smaller military" have not gone over well with most Republicans and some Democrats in Congress. But hey, the man seems to have no hesitation about using Defense Funding for his own benefit.

All of this adds up over time and Billions are wastefully spent. And yes, contrary to what Obama says - it's a lot of money!

So now, the most important question that someone needs to answer - really shouldn't be directed at Leon Panetta, but instead at President Obama to answer without the use of teleprompters and speech writers.

The question is this:  Can the President of the United States explain why no other qualified person, who could serve as Secretary of Defense and who would relocate to the Washington metro area for the job, be found for the job?

And a second question, if Obama hasn't already shut you out: Why are Leon Panetta's services worth an extra $20,000 a week in average travel costs?

While Barack Hussein Obama may not have to answer those questions, Secretary Panetta can expect to hear these kinds of questions from the Armed Services Committee which members include Rep. Allen West of Florida and Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

One statement from Panetta tells us a lot about how he feels about spending so much of the Taxpayer's money and not relocating to Washington D.C. permanently.

"I regret that it does — you know, that it does add costs that the taxpayer has to pick up. A taxpayer would have to pick up those costs with any secretary of state or secretary of defense," said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at an April 16 press conference at the Pentagon while defending his frequent flights to California.

Leon Panetta is 73 years old, and like most of the Democrats who have spent a lifetime in politics - he is extremely wealthy. He should ask himself, can America really afford a Secretary of Defense that cost almost One Million Taxpayer Dollars?

Maybe, just maybe, Secretary Panetta's conscious would steer his thoughts in the direction of accepting the idea that its a much better deal for all of us if he just stays home in Monterey and checks his walnuts on a daily basis - instead of just the weekends?


Story by Tom Correa

New Agriculture Labor Rules Just More Regulation Nation

From financial services to farming, plumbing to computer repair, business owners say new regulations have them so bogged down in compliance that it is hindering their ability to plan and expand for the coming years.

Even though President Obama recently acknowledged the need to minimize regulations, the number appears to be growing. Obama administration regulations on new business rose to 3,573 final rules in 2010, up from 3,503 in 2009 -- the equivalent of about 10 per week.

Now a report out of Omaha, Nebraska, says that Farmers and Ranchers are concerned about the new labor rules coming out of the United States Labor Department.

The proposed rules would prohibit most children under age 16 from driving tractors, using power equipment, working with livestock in certain circumstances, and doing work at heights over 6 feet. 

So when you hear about 15-year-old Taylor Muller and her three younger brothers who have always done what they could to help their family on their farm, whether it's tending to cows or driving a tractor or ATV - you know that they are concerned about the new U.S. Labor Department rules will effect their family and lifestyle.

"Most kids my age don't even have jobs," said Taylor, who assists her father at one Southwest Oklahoma farm and her grandparents at another. "We already know what hard work is."

Many other young kids won't be allowed to do those kinds of chores if the U.S. Labor Department approves new rules on children working in agriculture.

While the Mullers would likely be exempt because it's a family business, the proposed rules would prohibit most children under age 16 from doing most of the things that the Muller kids take for granted as part of life.

Federal officials say the rules are needed because farming is one of the nation's most dangerous occupations, but many farmers say children learn important life lessons and might develop an interest in agriculture by working on farms or ranches.

Muller's dad, Matt, says he worries about what the new rules might mean for the future of farming.

"It's very disheartening to me," he said. "Farming is not just a business. It's a way of life."

Michael Hancock, the assistant administrator for policy at the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division, said the rules covering child farm workers haven't been updated in more than 40 years and that changes are needed to address the dangers of working with tractors and other large farm machines.

"Farming," he said, "is the single-most hazardous occupation, as measured by fatalities, for children."

Nearly 29 out of every 100,000 farm workers in the U.S. die on the job, according to the National Safety Council. Among workers ages 15 to 24, the rate is about 21 deaths per 100,000 workers. Statistics for workers younger than 15 aren't available because there isn't enough data on them.

Hancock compared the proposed rules, which mostly apply to farm employees between the ages of 12 and 16, to those prohibiting a teenager from operating a meat slicer in a restaurant or a cardboard compactor in a grocery store.

"There's any number of things kids can do on a farm that will be totally unaffected by these regulations," Hancock said. For instance, he said, they can still detassle corn, haul hay and feed cattle.

Hancock also said he supports the proposed exemptions in the rules for children working on their parents' farms or on farms where a parent is a main operator.

"If the parents are responsible for what goes on on that farm, they're uniquely able to judge those risks," Hancock said.

Labor officials insist the rules are necessary because farming is dangerous.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently stated that the changes are warranted because statistics show that while only four percent of working youth are in the agriculture sector, 40 percent of fatalities of working kids are associated with machines, equipment, or facilities related to agriculture.


Nebraska farmer Shane Meyer worries those exemptions won't cover someone like him because the farm with about 2,500 hogs that he runs near Beatrice, Neb., is owned by someone else.

The rules may not be much of a problem for Meyer's boys, who do yard work and help care for the hogs, because one is already 16 and the other will turn 16 next year, but they would make it hard for him to hire any of his employees' or neighbors' kids.

"It's not the farms that are going to suffer. It's the kids," he said.

Agricultural groups say the parental exemption raises a lot of questions because many farms or ranches today are technically owned by limited liability corporations or other entities even if they are run by families. They say the proposed rules simply aren't clear about how they would apply to various ownership structures.

Matt Muller, who grows wheat and cotton on about 2,000 acres near Altus, Okla., said young cousins and nephews have helped out on his farm, but that might not be possible under the new rules. Plus, he wouldn't be able to hire neighbor kids.

He also wonders how his children would be affected if he and his wife switched the ownership to a limited liability corporation.

A fourth-generation farmer with four children under age 16, Muller said he hopes they will follow him into the business but worries they won't if they don't get interested in farming early. He grew up driving tractors and sweeping out grain bins and said it's a lifestyle he doesn't think labor officials understand.

"They may have legitimate safety concerns, but I don't think they've spent much time on a farm," he said.

For instance, the proposed rules would prohibit the use of any sort of electronic or communication device while operating a tractor, but it's common practice to use two-way radios or cellphones to communicate between tractors, trucks and combines in the field. And many modern tractors come equipped with GPS systems and other electronics that teens might not be able to use.

The National Pork Producers Council, Farm Bureau chapters in several states and other major agriculture groups have organized to oppose the proposed rules. Officials in agricultural states also have questioned the wisdom of the changes.

Iowa Cattlemen chief executive Matt Deppe said he believes the new rules would make it harder for young people to get the hands-on experience they need to become interested in agriculture.

"I see them as creating a barrier for young people interested in the business," said Deppe, who grew up on a farm and learned to drive a tractor at age 10.

Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling, who raises pecans near Sand Springs for over 40 years, said he didn't think the rules were needed because "farmers and ranchers weren't likely to assign teenagers to the most dangerous jobs."

"Accidents can happen on farms, but they can also happen in every area of life, said Spradling.


"We are surrounded day to day with certain risks, and the sooner we start to deal with those risks the better the odds are of being successful," Spradling said. "I think that's the one thing young people in the agriculture culture get to learn at a very young age. It prepares young men and women for life's challenges much earlier."

The agriculture community has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for workers of all ages and has done so, Spradling said. Farm work instills responsibility and compassion in young people and provides an educational lab to learn sciences such as zoology and horticulture, he said.

"There's no other place in the world they can achieve those things. The lessons learned here are more than what can be learned in a textbook," Spradling said.

Jack Staats, supervisor of agricultural education for Oklahoma, said he is proud of the opportunities public school agricultural education programs provide for students to use what they learn in the classroom in real-world, supervised situations.

He said he does not want the regulations to affect the training of young farm workers by taking away on-farm learning opportunities.

"I respect the thought process to make it safer, but I question who is going to train these young people and nourish their love of agriculture if they're not allowed to participate and be a part of it," Staats said. "There's a vast number of farms anymore that have to depend on neighbor kids, nephews and nieces, and if we limit them to where they can't do anything until they're 16 years of age, that really bothers me."

Reighly Blakley, 15, is part of the agricultural education at program at Oologah-Talala High School. As part of the program, the sophomore tours the state to speak about Oklahoma agriculture, shows cattle and hogs and sells the vegetables she raises at farmers markets in Tulsa and Owasso. In October, Blakley was named one of four national finalists for the vegetable production award at the National FFA Convention.

Blakley, her siblings and her cousins grew up helping in the family's plant nursery and on the ranch where they raise cattle, hogs and sheep.

"I think it's helped me with major leadership skills and responsibility because I can't just decide one day I don't want to get up and feed my cattle. They have to be fed. That responsibility's impacted my life in a major way," Blakley said. "I think it will help me when I get older and get a job. I know I can't just decide 'I don't want to go to work today.'"

Blakley, who wants to be an agricultural lawyer when she grows up, does not think the proposed regulation changes that she knows of are necessary.

She has worked alongside her father stacking hay and herding cattle on horseback since she was young, both jobs that the proposed regulations could prohibit some young workers from doing. She has also been inside a pen with a bull, or with a cow and her calf, and says that young people who have grown up on a ranch know it is necessary to be careful in these situations and should not be banned from performing them.

Blakley, who was given her first bottle-calf when she was 4 years old, now has around 40 cattle in her name and shows steers and heifers nearly every weekend. She loves having the opportunity to watch an animal grow from birth to adulthood, she said.

"Not every kid gets to do this," Blakley said. "I feel privileged to be part of a family that has been in the farming and ranching business for a long time."

The Labor Department can only regulate employer-employee relationships, so Michael Hancock said the proposed rules shouldn't affect 4-H, Future Farmers of America or other educational programs. And, they may not keep children from helping on their grandparents' or uncle's farms if they aren't paid.

"I think there is a clear path forward for kids who want to pursue agriculture as a career," Hancock said.

Glorine Wilson of Kellyville was raised on a cattle ranch. And she has a message for the Labor Department: "Give the farmer a break. If it wasn’t for the farmer and the rancher, Americans wouldn’t eat."

No matter what government employee Hancock says, Wilson and others contend the proposed rules could keep kids from learning about the hard work and responsibility necessary to work on a farm.

Help Might Be Coming!

This week during The Ag Minute, House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas discussed the latest regulatory attack on family farms and rural America by the Obama administration.

The fact that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a regulation that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for young people to access comprehensive on-farm education and employment opportunities has not gone unnoticed in Congress as complaints mount.


Chairman Frank Lucas is a co-sponsor of H.R. 4157, the Preserving America's Family Farms Act, which was introduced by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA).

The bill blocks DOL from implementing any regulation that would prohibit youth from working on family owned farms.

During The Ag Minute, Chairman Frank Lucas said, "During our farm bill field hearings, agricultural producers continue to tell us their concerns about the Department of Labor’s proposal to regulate youth working on farms. These farmers are worried about what it could mean for the future of their family farms. They're worried about ensuring the next generation gains the necessary hands-on experience to keep American agriculture moving forward.

"With all the top-down, stifling regulations coming out of the Obama administration, farmers are justified in their concerns. The Labor Department has said they will re-propose one part of the regulation, but that's still not going to solve the other burdens this regulation will bring to bear that could ultimately prevent young people from working on farms.

"It’s no surprise the Obama administration has created a regulation that’s completely out-of-touch with the values and reality of rural America. I appreciate the work of the producer organizations who are leading the charge to educate the administration, Congress and the public about the serious consequences of this proposal.

"I applaud the efforts of all my colleagues, both in the House and Senate, who continue to shine the light on this senseless regulation that was clearly crafted in the dark. Now it’s up to the Department of Labor to demonstrate some common-sense and drop it."

Sam Johnston owns Farmers Feed in Sapulpa. Sam used to run a cattle farm, "My kids got on a tractor about the same time a lot of kids began riding a tricycle. They had chores to do and at a very young age they learned to drive a tractor. And that's the way it should be."

What Sam and others have a problem with these days is extremely basic and not hard to understand. The problem is that instead of remaining a free society that respects the rights and judgement of its people, we are becoming more and more a Regulation Nation.

Why, because we have a Federal Government that feels it is somehow responsible for ever human act that American citizens do in their daily lives. 

Sam wishes the Federal Labor officials would "mind their own business." And yes, many many Americans, Farms and others, agree with him.


Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS! Obama & Hugo Chavez, George Washington, Disabled MMA Fireman, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Obama Supported Socialist Dictator against Democracy in Honduras, so why does Venezuelan Dictator Chavez blame Obama for Cancer?

Dictators always have to blame someone else for their troubles - that's just what they do to divert attention away from their own problems which in most cases was caused by them in the first place.

For a long time, Chavez has questioned whether the U.S. government could be plotting to oust him. No big surprise there. But honestly, Chavez has had to find comfort with Barack Obama in the White House.

After all, Obama has been quick to side with the world's Socialist Dictators and against the defense of Democracy taking place.

Look at what happened just a few months after he entered office in June and July of 2009 in Honduras. In the case of Honduras Socialist Dictator Manuel Zelaya, many still remember how Obama took the side of the Socialist Dictator over those in the coup to bring Democracy to Honduras.

It's been nearly three years, and hundreds of political murders have taken place, but it seems that the Obama administration is still on the side of repression and denial of Hondurans' basic human rights. So with a track record like that, why would a Socialist Dictator like Chavez even think that Obama is not sympathetic to him.

It is said that a Dictator has a long memory and remembers those who cross him. Most tyrants want their people to have a short memory. Their problem is that some people do, and some don't.

Earlier this week, Venezuelan Dictator Chavez proved that his memory might not be as good as it should be.

He must have forgotten that his friend Barack Obama was a staunch supporter of Socialist Dictators like himself, when Chavez said that "it was very strange" that he "and the leaders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay have struggled with cancer lately."

Chavez went on to say that he does not have any proof that the U.S. is behind this - but asked, "Would it be strange if they [United States] had developed a technology to induce cancer and no one knew it?"

The Obama administration has strongly denounced Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for questioning whether the U.S. might be behind a rash of cancer cases among Latin American leaders. Since being elected, many Americans have just take it for granted that Obama likes Socialism or is a Socialist himself.

I can't help but wonder if President Obama was hurt by the suggestion that he'd actually hurt a fellow Socialist, and maybe said something like, "That really hurts considering some of my best friends are Socialist - just check with Bill Ayers!"  

Yes, all birds of a feather flock together!

From July of 2009

 
SECOND SHOT!
 
Congressman Allen West says "No Regrets Calling Democrats Communists"
 
As a young U.S. Marine, I remember going through training regarding the Communist threat to our nation and our way of life. Later after leaving the Marine Corps, I entered College and found that many there - especially many members of the faculty - reminded me of the profile of faithful Communists. 
 
As I got older and listened to many Liberals, many who were leaders of the Democrat Party, I saw and noted that they were indeed spouting off Communist Doctrine just like one of the devout faithful would. Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that one day a U.S. Congressman would actually call it like it is and tell the word what he sees in Washington, D.C. in the halls of Congress.
 
It never occurred to me that a Congressman, with similar military training in understanding the Communist threat, would actually come forward and say what many Americans have thought for years.
 
On April 13th, U.S. Congressman Allen West said "The Democratic Party is full of Communists."
 
Rep. Allen West of Florida is a Tea Party favorite and the only Republican member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
 
At a town hall meeting in Palm City, Florida, Rep West said that he believes there are "about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party."

The comments came after a member of the audience asked him what percentage of Congress are "card-carrying Marxists"? After a drawn-out pause, West clarified his claim, saying, "It's actually called the Congressional Progressive Caucus."

Holy cow, were the Liberals in Washington upset about that. So much that almost all of their usually propaganda media sources called for Representative Allen West to apologize.

Well, on April 17th, Congressman Allen West refused to back away from earlier remarks to constituents in Florida that dozens of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives were Communists.

The freshman Republican, who is backed by the Tea Party, was asked at a forum whether he had second thoughts about calling the 78 members of the House Progressive Caucus Communists.

"I don't regret it whatsoever," said Representative West - who is being mentioned as a possible running mate for the Vice President slot this year.

"There is a very thin line between Communism, Progressivism, Marxism, Socialism ... it's about nationalizing production, it's about creating and expanding the welfare state. It's about this idea of social and economic justice," said West.

West served in the United States Army for more than 20 years of active duty service, including several combat deployments in Iraq. He achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. After leaving the military he and his family moved to Florida where he taught high school for a year and worked for a defense contractor, including in Afghanistan as a civilian adviser to the Afghan National Army.

To his credit, he has many awards and decorations including the Bronze Star for bravery.

Representative West has asked  fellow Conservatives for their help in his re-election campaign. And no, he has not backed down - but instead is repeating his belief that members of the Progressive Caucus are akin to Communists.

 
THIRD SHOT!

George Washington named as Great Britain's Greatest Military Opponent Ever!

Imagine that  for a moment. We're talking about a nation that has been around for hundreds of years, yet George Washington has been named Great Britain's Greatest Military Opponent ever. It's just hard to believe really.

Great Britain's greatest ever foe was George Washington, according to the United Kingdom's National Army Museum.

During the American Revolution, 1775 to 1787, Congress created the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. George Washington was appointed Major General and Commander-in-chief.

Washington had three roles during the war. In 1775–77, and again in 1781 he led his men against the main British forces. Although he lost many of his battles, he never surrendered his army during the war, and he continued to fight the British relentlessly until the war's end. He plotted the overall strategy of the war, in cooperation with Congress.

Second, he was charged with organizing and training the army. He recruited regulars and assigned Baron and General Friedrich von Steuben, a veteran of the Prussian general staff, to train them. The war effort and getting supplies to the troops were under the purview of Congress, but Washington pressured the Congress to provide the essentials.

In June 1776, Congress' first attempt at running the war effort was established with the committee known as "Board of War and Ordnance", succeeded by the Board of War in July 1777, a committee which eventually included members of the military.

The command structure of the Americans' armed forces was a hodgepodge of Congressional appointees. Congress also had the habit of sometimes making those appointments without Washington's input with state-appointments filling the lower ranks and of all of the militia-officers. The results of his general staff were mixed, as some of his favorites like John Sullivan never mastered the art of command.

Eventually Washington found capable officers, like General Nathaniel Greene, and his chief-of-staff Alexander Hamilton. The American officers never equalled their British opponents in tactics and maneuver, and consequently they lost most of the pitched battles.

The great successes, at Boston (1776), Saratoga (1777) and Yorktown (1781), came from trapping the British far from base with much larger numbers of troops.

Third, and most important, Washington was the embodiment of America's armed resistance to the Crown. He was the representative man of the Revolution. His enormous stature and political skills kept Congress, the Army, our French allies, the many state and local militias, and the states all pointed toward a common goal.

Then by voluntarily stepping down and disbanding his Army when the war was won, he permanently established the principle of civilian supremacy in military affairs.

Earlier in the 1780s, George Washington had been approached twice by the officers who promised their support if he decided to seize civilian power. In one famous incident in 1782, Col. Lewis Nicola wrote a letter urging Washington to overthrow Congress and become America's King. Washington instead scolded Nicola the very same day.

Then in 1783, Washington caught wind of officers wanting to stage a coup d'état against Congress. The so-called Newburgh Conspirators were frustrated that Congress was not paying them what had been promised when the nation desperately needed their sacrifice. Washington would not be moved.

On the Ides of March - a date rich in irony for its association with the tyranny and assassination of Julius Caesar - he called the men together and sternly reprimanded them for losing faith in the idea of America. The new nation had a chance to succeed only if its leaders and military adhered to the rule of law. This was the non-negotiable foundation of a free republic.

When King George III of England heard that George Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress instead of being America's King, he told the painter Benjamin West,  "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

He later presided over the writing of our Constitution in 1787.

As all Americans should know, and I blame Liberal Teachers if everyone doesn't, George Washington was the first President of the United States of America. He served as such from 1789 to 1797.

He was in fact the dominant military and political leader of the United States from 1775 to 1799. Washington became the first president by unanimous choice, and oversaw the creation of a strong, well-financed national government that maintained neutrality in the wars raging in Europe, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types.

Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I of France) said, "Posterity will talk of Washington as the Founder of a Great Empire, when my name shall be lost in the vortex of revolution."

The American Revolutionary War hero and first President became the winner of a vote held at the United Kingdom's National Army Museum to identify Great Britain's most outstanding military opponent, reported by the The (London) Daily Telegraph.

The museum drew up a list of 20 candidates, which was whittled down to a shortlist of five. On Saturday, five historians presented the case for each commander to an audience of 70 guests at the west London museum who then voted.

Washington was named ahead of Michael Collins, who led Ireland to independence from the United Kingdom, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, World War II German commander Erwin Rommel, and Turkish World War I leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

To qualify for the vote, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards - the period covered by the museum's collection - and had to have actually led an army in the field against the British, which excluded political enemies like Adolf Hitler.

 
FOURTH SHOT!

Bride charged with Faking Cancer for lavish Wedding

From The Times Herald-Record, Goshen, New York, authorities there say a former New York woman pretended to have terminal cancer so she could have a lavish wedding reception and honeymoon.

The Times Herald-Record reports that an Orange County Grand Jury has indicted 25-year-old Jessica Vega, a former Montgomery resident, with grand larceny and scheme to defraud.

According to the indictment, Jessica Vega accepted thousands of dollars in donated services and goods after claiming in 2010 that she was dying of leukemia. And yes. even the newspaper ran a story on Vega's wedding wish to be married to the father of her young daughter before she "died."

The small community reportedly came together, and many having sacrificed, contributed thousands and donated services to provide her with the wedding of her dreams. She married Michael O'Connell in May 2010 and the couple spent their honeymoon in Aruba - all paid for by friends and the community who wanted to help a woman in at death's door.

Four months later, the honeymoon was over when Michael O'Connell told the newspaper that Jessica Vega in reality faking the illness.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told the paper that Jessica Vega "took advantage of the community’s hearts and minds. Our office will hold this individual accountable for fleecing the public through lies and deception."

The couple divorced over the incident, and Michael O'Connell moved to Virginia. Jessica Vega later joined him. They have two children.

"She's a good mom, and that's all that counts at the end of the day," Michael O'Connell said, according to the report. "I want my kids to have their mother back."

Jessica Vega was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. She's being held in county jail on $10,000 bail.

What can you say about someone so sick as to impersonate someone dying of cancer in order to fleece people? I can't really think of the proper word to describe her, scum is too polite and dirt-bag is too gentle. I guess we're just going to have to call her what she is - nothing but criminal trash.


FIFTH SHOT!

Laid-up Los Angeles fireman arrested after being caught MMA Fighting

Years ago a friend blew his back out, and an acquaintance told him don't let "them" catch you doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing. The "them" was the State's Workers Compensation Insurance. He didn't have to worry about doing anything stupid, he could hardly get around at the time.

Later when he went through Vocational Retraining, he was amazed to hear stories of how many people fake on the job injuries for quick cash settlements. He was shocked to learn how many abuse a system not really designed for the injured worker - but really suited for the opportunist. That is, unless of course he gets caught.

Recently, a laid-up Los Angeles Fireman was arrested on suspicion of Insurance Fraud after he was caught moonlighting as a Mixed Martial Arts Fighter under the name "The Noodle."

Now, we're not talking about some guy who claimed to have a bad back and insurance investigators have pictures of him hauling a sofa - we're talking a guy who is supposed to be injured who is dumb enough to stay with Mixed Martial Arts Fighting while receiving money compensation from the State.

It's just my opinion, but I think he may have taken too many punches to the head because this Fireman is not very bright. 

Prosecutors allege Raphael Davis, 35 years old, filed for Workers' Compensation between Dec. 2, 2008, to May 20, 2011, even though the "injured" Fireman fought in MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fights during that time period.

When arrested, Raphael Davis was hit with four felony counts of Insurance Fraud for taking $30,000 in disability checks from the Los Angeles Fire Department.

An office spokeswoman declined to detail what ailments Davis claimed to have that would prevent him from being able to work his regular job. But whatever it was, he is now being held on $30,000 bail and is facing a five-year jail term if convicted.

According to one MMA website, Raphael Davis is 6ft-3in, 203-pounds and has a 12-2 record, and went 6-1 through the workers compensation claim period.


LAST SHOT!

Wisconsin man arrested for slaughtering 100 deer or more in "Thrill Kill"

This is one of those stories that makes me just shake my head and ask why?

In March, four guys in Wisconsin decided to shoot at least 100 deer without a license. Now the hunters are threatening a fine of $ 1,000, or about $ 10 per animal.

That's right! Four Wisconsin man illegally slaughtered as many as 100 deer in what prosecutors call an unprecedented "thrill-kill" spree. They now faces up to six months in jail.

That's all, just six months in jail and a $1000 fine, and they walk.

The oldest is Nathan Blaha, 20 years old, of Hillsboro, Wisconsin. He and his three accomplices allegedly wandered the backroads of Richland County in a pickup truck, stunning deer with a light before shooting them - and yes, they just left their carcasses there to rot.

Supposedly it was a contest to "get the most deer," according to court documents.

"This is the antithesis of hunting," Richland County District Attorney Jennifer Harper told Fox News. "This is thrill killing."

I agree, this isn't hunting. This is a sick sort of blood lust that people in their area should be worried about.

Nathan Blaha, and his accomplices, 17 year old Steven Blaha and 18 year old Brogan Gillingham, face criminal charges in the December killing spree. But it appears that they will only receive lite penalties considering the enormity of the crime.

To me, it's not just about shooting whitetail deer from the road after dark and without a license. It's about the scope and their sick intent. This has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with their twisted idea of entertainment. The aim of unusual entertainment was which of the four could kill more deer.

Blinded by the headlights, the animals near the road were then shot and left to rot. 

District Attorney Jennifer Harper said, a fourth suspect, a juvenile male who has not been named, was issued citations. Steven Blaha, 17, can be tried as an adult under Wisconsin law.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by Fox News, Nathan Blaha is believed to have done most of the shooting and has confessed to killing 20 to 30 deer "this past fall and during the 2011-2012 gun deer season illegally."

"The reason I was doing this was because we all kind of had bets who could get the most deer," Nathan Blaha said in a written statement to Conservation Warden Mike Nice of Richland Center.

But Nathan Blaha's co-defendants estimated the number of slain deer to be much greater, telling authorities they believe he illegally shot and killed as many as 100 whitetail deer within the past two years.

"There have been cases of shining and road hunting," Harper said, "but nothing to this extent."

Deer "shining" is the practice of using a high-powered, hand-held light to see the animal at night. The bright light is commonly used by hunters to track the location of deer herds at night when the animals are most active.

Nathan Blaha, 20,  is charged with three counts that each carry a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 minimum fine. He also faces revocation of hunting rights for the next nine years.

Nine years, that it? Nine years? Folks, these young Jerkweeds should never be allowed to hunt and kill anything again.

Nine years! That's insane when looking at what they have done and why. And yes, the reason they did this is the most important part of this story.

My God, it was for entertainment!

The investigation into the illegal deer killings began when private landowners reported hearing gunshots at night and finding deer carcasses on their properties.

Licensed deer hunting is a time-honored tradition throughout the scenic landscape of Richland County and other parts of the state during a nine-day period around Thanksgiving. Like other states, residents must obtain a license and conform to various regulations and ethical rules. Hunters can use only certain kinds of weapons, for example, and are prohibited from shooting after sundown.

The suspected illegal slaughtering of deer by Nathan Blaha violates all of the rules of hunting, authorities said, and has since outraged many hunters and conservation groups who claim Nathan Blaha may have depleted the herd and brought unfair notoriety to the sport.

"Some people hear this story and they think that’s what hunters do," said Jeffrey Schinkten, president of Whitetails Unlimited, a national conservation organization based in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin.

"He’s not a hunter. He’s a game thief," Schinkten told Fox News. "I hope they throw the book at him. It’s unconscionable."

I agree. Nathan Blaha is not a deer hunter, he is a criminal and should be tried much more harsh than what he will get for doing what he has done. As far as I'm concerned, he and his brother should a few years in prison for the needless slaughter.

What a waste! Such a crime! Such creeps! They wouldn't last long around this neck of the woods. To actually receive joy from killing deer like that, with those numbers, is just sad.

In this area, everyone hunts - but we never see stuff like this. This is just too sick to accept simply as just kids having fun.  Killing deer for entertainment, makes me wonder what if they got bored with that and decided to move to shooting people - for entertainment. 

These creeps should not be in possession of any type of firearm ever again. Any hunter worth his salt would never allow these jerks to have hunting permits again, nevertheless allow them the possibility of handling firearms. This guys are sick.


Story by Tom Correa