McConnell on IRS Scandal: 'We've Only Started to Scratch the Surface'

Why Chuck Hagel Will Be a Great Secretary of 'Defense'

Former Senator Chuck Hagel will bring a fresh and necessary perspective to the office of Secretary of Defense for which he was confirmed today.  Contrary to recent sound bites in especially the conservative Establishment, where he was grilled by AIPAC-owned Senators, this video shows the real Chuck Hagel taking his Senate Foreign Relations colleagues to task during the Iraq "surge" policy being implemented by the Bush administration.  As a republican he dared to challenge directly the typical politically-correct (but superficial) propaganda that criticized any dissent from Bush foreign policy, which ironically was continued under Obama.  Democrats could compare him to the late Sen. Robert Byrd who led dissent about Iraq among democrats when it was politically-incorrect too.

Watch this and see for yourself.  This is what courage and virtue looks like in the politically-charged mudslinging of Washington and Congress.  Hagel is unafraid and very much concerned about the deployment of the men and women in the military who have no voice or advocate normally to defend their lives and interests when the passion to start or expand wars begins.  He chastises his Senate colleagues with authority and demands they consider what is really at stake and whether the comprehensive strategy is even sound during a time where propaganda and personal attacks are tossed about to intimidate and force a false patriotic "unity" behind a flawed but popular war policy that others are too afraid to challenge.

If this does not demonstrate his sound judgment and soberness of mind when making war decisions versus the neoconservative and AIPAC-funded political attacks against his nomination for Secretary of Defense recently then I am speechless.  This decorated veteran and astute Senator and statesman is fully qualified and greatly needed to check and restrain the hasty and easily influenced U.S. foreign policy that we have witnessed for over a decade now.  Neither will he be a lap dog republican for Obama, but will likely restrain any more actions of this President to rush into further Middle East involvement (e.g. Libya, regime change, nation building) without sober objections, especially if they involve U.S. troops.

It is supposed to be a Department of Defense, not a Department of Offense, after all.  Four courageous and thoughtful republicans supported his nomination, from the South and Midwest, including Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (see link above), who also advocates (along with Sen. Joe Manchin) auditing the Pentagon to uncover its mysterious wasting and loss of billions of dollars (see previous posts), which has been no small contributor to the fiscal debt problem.

Blow-back: A West Virginia Company Stands Up to Government Gun Control

Here is a West Virginia company that deals to governments as they intend to deal towards us regarding new legislation and gun control contrary to the 2nd Amendment. And they are not alone. Mark it, patronize it, and spread the word about it.  And let Kanawha County Sheriff Rutherford--who says he will enforce "whatever [unconstitutional] laws" the Federal government passes, here in West Virginia (violating also thereby the Constitution of West Virginia, Article I, 1-2, which he swore to uphold)--and Sen. Joe Manchin know you support them too.

Remember:  "Mountaineers are always free" unless they bow to unconstitutional government tyranny.

Firearms Companies Restricting Sales To GOVERNMENT Agencies In Areas That Restrict Gun Rights | CNS News

A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them. 

According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2^nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states: 

   "The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction."

Benghazi Attack was Blow-back for Obama's Secret Ops; Brennan Appointed CIA Chief to Cover-Up, Control Mess

The New York Times, and we hope Seymour Hersh in particular (see his articles on JSOC secret operation and stealth wars), will likely be all over this breaking story (see below) and new book which proves that the Obama Administration deliberately lied about the reasons for the Benghazi attack while tying together the loose ends that show why former CIA Chief Petraeus was removed (yes, by his own folly, but disclosed for a purpose) and why John Brennan has been appointed by Obama as CIA chief. 

These secret JSOC black ops (outside of CIA oversight and authority) that are taking place under Obama's Executive Authority are similar to precisely what Hersh exposed was happening under the Bush Administration.  Only the targets are different.  This "connects the dots" as to why the Benghazi story was so (deliberately) muddled officially and the sudden (convenient) scandal which ousted David Petraeus from being CIA chief (who was kept in the dark about these ops).

Hey liberals, do you still trust Obama now?  You did think that the scandal that brought down Petraeus and the official Benghazi story were a bit strange and somewhat related, didn't you?  They did not pass the smell test and this article and book sheds a lot of light on these two controversies.

Like we posted earlier about the Benghazi attacks (see article below), it was a classic case of what the CIA calls "blow-back" for the Obama Administration's secret policies.  Now you know the real reason that an "anti-Islamic video" on YouTube was blamed and why former Ambassador Susan Rice said what she said, when she did, in the running commentary.  It's called Plausible Deniability of covert operations by insertion of a "cover story" into the official narrative of the Executive Branch.  (It was for her personal loyalty that Obama staunchly defended Susan Rice against critics of her nomination for Secretary of State).  And
now we know that even the CIA, namely Petraeus, was in the dark about what was going on and why they "needed him removed" (so they could cover their tracks with Brennan in an official capacity).

Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Petraeus was humiliated after a 'palace coup' by high-level intelligence
officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276139/David-Petraeus-CIA-directors-bodyguards-exposed-affair-Paula-Broadwell-claims-Benghazi-The-Definitive-Report.html#ixzz2KXfJVTQ6

Behind closed doors, President Obama had given his counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, carte blanche to run operations in North Africa [i.e. including Libya] and the Middle East, provided he didn’t do anything that ended up becoming an exposé in The New York Times [e.g. by Seymour Hersh] and embarrassing the administration. In 2012, a secret war across North Africa was well underway.

The pieces all fit together so nicely now don't they?  The Truth always eventually Emerges!

"Save the Children"...Really? Guns and the President

Guns and the President by Andrew P. Napolitano

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama?

      ...  One hundred years ago, during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson turned the concept of limited government on its head. They argued that the Constitution could be disregarded because the federal government possesses unlimited powers to address the people's needs. Barack Obama is their ideological heir. As their heir, he is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties.

That political party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal. The Democrats have continually celebrated the abominable decision of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, issued 40 years ago this week. They have championed abortion for the past 40 years. They have assaulted the greatest and most fundamental of human rights: the right to live. In doing so, they have succeeded in causing the government to permit the killing of more than 50 million American babies in their mothers' wombs in the past 40 years – for the sake of convenience and sexual activity without consequence, in a manner that is antiseptic and lawful. And no one hears the babies' cries of pain or anguish.

 The president himself has more directly killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone – not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away, since all of this takes place 10,000 miles from America, and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children's cries of pain and anguish...

Bearing Arms in West Virginia: "Sen. Jay Rockefeller Owns an AR-15"

The editor of the Charleston Gazette, known for its blatant anti-gun advocacy (i.e. their "bearing arms in West Virginia" comments appear regularly to harass law abiding citizens in Sunday's opinion briefs), should be interested in this.

     Senator 'Jay' Rockefeller owns one of these.

"I voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994, which also included a ban of high capacity clips, and it's unacceptable that it hasn't been reauthorized...."  -- The State Journal

Take a look at the arms that (if correct in the interview below) Senator Jay Rockefeller is bearing! For the record, this is what is being labeled an "assault weapon" (anything semi-automatic with high capacity clips), the very type of weapons that Obama and the Left side of Congress in particular want to limit by Executive Order or new unconstitutional legislation.  Sen. Joe Manchin (NRA approved) has advocated limits too.

It makes the rest of us appear rather tame by comparison, doesn't it?  Now by comparison even Senator Joe Manchin may not be as well armed as this, who fired a round from a .306 to gain points in a political campaign ad.  Yet both of them seem to want to limit the types of arms West Virginians can bear, grossly limiting the 2nd amendment by pleas of "necessity".  What do you think of that?

Yet Senator "Jay" Rockefeller owns one of these according to Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America (i.e. "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"--Ron Paul) in this recent interview and debate below with a very frustrated Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC  (point made just after the 4:00 min. mark).

Mitchell: "Who...why would someone own a Bushmaster?"

Pratt: "[Senator] Jay Rockefeller [D-West Virginia] owns an AR-15".

Touche'!  Point scored.  After all, the Gazette always likes to make a big story of any hypocrisy.  Well here is a good piece for them to put into print then, from an opposing view in their next "bearing arms in West Virginia" piece.  But don't hold your breath for it.

Be sure to tell your two West Virginia Senators what you think of Obama's plethora of executive orders or any limitations and further regulations of gun ownership in this state.  Call or write them now, and Rep. Capito too, since she is aiming to take Senator Rockefeller's seat upon his announced retirement at the end of his term.

Why Semi-Automatics, Ammo Clips, and Unregistered Guns "shall not be infringed"!

What is the real purpose of the 2nd amendment of the Constitution?  Is it to protect the ability to hunt?  Or merely self-defense?  Or is it more than that?  Let's hear from the author of the Constitution himself.  Here is just a few excerpts of what Mr. Madison had to say about it. 

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Is this clear enough?  Something is very wrong when the government becomes "afraid to trust the people with arms".  It would be a major revolution from America's foundational grounds of government from a "free country" to a tyrannical state.  Even after the Civil War the armies of the Southern States, particularly Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, were permitted by General Grant to keep their weapons upon their surrender.  So why should American's rights be taken away now because of some insane criminals?  In no other case are criminals allowed to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to "prevent tragedies like this".  If that were the case we would have no rights at all.

Congress has no legal authority to pass any law that infringes on the free and unencumbered right to bear all kinds and types of private arms, including "assault" (i.e. actually semi-automatic) weapons and multiple clips, and that without compulsory registration, tracking, or any other "infringement".  Only those legally tried and convicted and sentenced lose their rights.  No one else.

Listen to Walter Williams on this, who takes President Obama and Congress--including Senator Joe Manchin--and the very bias media to school about this subject, and sets the record straight.

By the way, "Mountaineers are always free" (West Virginia's state motto) only if they resist such anti-second amendment tyranny.

Why 'Gun Control' Legislation Is Both Irrational and Dangerous

The facts about guns, crime, mass shootings, and gun control are very different than what the media has often portrayed.  (By the way, the media loves the viewer and readership ratings of mass shootings and like tragic events which they splash across their newscasts and headlines for days after to retain their audience and ratings and increase ad revenues).  The entire public, and especially Senator Joe Manchin and The Gazette in particular, should pay close attention to this thoughtful and apolitical analysis about gun control and its faulty premise.  This is a refreshing non-partisan look at this volatile issue which analyzes the facts from sound sources in a dispassionate manner for thoughtful consideration.  The facts themselves will surprise many.

Did you know that mass shootings have not increased over the last few decades?  Did you know that most every mass shooting took place in a "gun free zone", where other people could not be armed even with a concealed carry permit?   Did you know that "gun control" really is only gun centralization and disarms the innocent while not preventing criminals from obtaining or using them?  Those and many other important facts are related in this excellent analysis for the public and Congress to carefully consider before trying to legislate a "fix" for mass shootings, which in fact would make everyone more unsafe and vulnerable instead.

It is also unconstitutional, per the Second Amendment, of course to prevent the obtaining and bearing of personal arms (which the Supreme Court recently ruled on striking down some municipal laws on handgun restrictions) and every political officer (local, State and Federal) has sworn to "defend and protect" the laws in the Constitution as a condition for entering and remaining in office.  They should all be held accountable and the media should not entice them to violate their constitutional oaths.  That accountability is what makes Sen. Joe Manchin so afraid of what he said, and then said again with Hoppy on West Virginia talk radio (i.e. he was for a ban on assault weapons or clips before he was against it), and why he appears to be trying to get the NRA to compromise with him (to shield him) for a (pretended) "solution", which is unachievable by gun control methods.  Even President Obama has tread softly (with the subtlety of a serpent) on this issue; publicly that is.

Watch it and spread it.