Navigation
SEARCH BOX - USE KEY WORDS, NAMES, OR PHRASES.

866-391-6593

Call For Quote

or Click Link!

  •   Build Your Brand
  •       with KLAS!
CODAmeds®

CODAmeds® Dispensers

Manage pills & supplements

 

 

Entries in Gun Control (14)

Tuesday
Jul142015

Jade Helm 15 is not a Movie - It's Real!

Although not a movie, the title of "Jade Helm 15" does sound like another episode in the James Bond or another Sci-Fi hero saga. Actually, the mystery deepens as the Jade Helm 15 has created conspiracy theories that are based on the eponymous (of a person) giving their name to something like this United States military training exercise, scheduled to take place in multiple US states from July 15 to September 15, 2015. This has not been described as a "DOD Joint Exercise" which therefore defines these maneuvers are for the sole purpose to practice homeland engagement on U.S. soil for a specialized group of soldiers in a domestic role. 

The announcements of these training exercises have raised concerns that have been characterized by The New York Times as "travers[ing] the outer edges of political paranoia." They should too since the shroud of secrecy about the maneuvers does raise questions about the seemingly odd name and just what's going on in the great State of Texas too.

I have researched the "JADE" name which refers to the "Joint Assistant for Deployment & Execution" software program. It is military software which is "network centric warfare" for developing and leveraging information superiority in AI, Artificial Intelligence" programs that use force deployment systems calculating best strategies in fighting insurgents.

The name "Helm" refers to taking over leading and directing activities under military controls. This military JADE software program exercise has been described in seminars as to engage in "asymmetric warfare against belligerence." The word asymmetric refers to unequally matched combatants in the field such as terrorists, rioters, insurgents, unruly civilians that are defined as the "belligerents."--their small arms and munitions for retaliation do not match the military complex and therefore are asymmetrically smaller or more easily defeated.

The training program also encompasses securing tactical information. It is through undercover intelligence through spy networks, data network monitoring, populace surveillance and extensive data mining of a population's activities.  

The public hearing these concerns have asked and received assistance from Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Louis Gohmert to inquire and watch over this program. They both assured the public they will see it does not in any way encroach on the state rights of Texans--only time will bear out citizen's concerns.

Tuesday
Jul082014

A Daydream & Nightmare - Obama Horror Story

This Column really hits home with its facts, interviews and insight into Obama's Presidency as it comes to a close. Why wasn't this written up at the beginning? Easy, because Peggy Noonan in her wildest dreams could never have imagined such a quixotic fool's paradise run in the U.S. Presidential Office!

 

The Daydream and the Nightmare

Obama isn't doing his job. He's waiting for history to recognize his greatness.

By
Peggy Noonan
Wall Street Journal
 
July 4, 2014 5:37 p.m. ET

I don't know if we sufficiently understand how weird and strange, how historically unparalleled, this presidency has become. We've got a sitting president who was just judged in a major poll to be the worst since World War II. The worst president in 70 years! Quinnipiac University's respondents also said, by 54% to 44%, that the Obama administration is not competent to run the government. A Zogby Analytics survey asked if respondents are proud or ashamed of the president. Those under 50 were proud, while those over 50, who have of course the longest experienced sense of American history, were ashamed.

We all know the reasons behind the numbers. The scandals that suggest poor stewardship and, in the case of the IRS, destructive political mischief. The president's signature legislation, which popularly bears his name and contains within it the heart of his political meaning, continues to wreak havoc in marketplaces and to be unpopular with the public. He is incapable of working with Congress, the worst at this crucial aspect of the job since Jimmy Carter, though Mr. Carter at least could work with the Mideast and produced the Camp David Accords. Mr. Obama has no regard for Republicans and doesn't like to be with Democrats. Internationally, small states that have traditionally been the locus of trouble (the Mideast) are producing more of it, while large states that have been more stable in their actions (Russia, China) are newly, starkly aggressive.

That's a long way of saying nothing's working.

Which I'm sure you've noticed.

 
http://

Martin Kozlowski

But I'm not sure people are noticing the sheer strangeness of how the president is responding to the lack of success around him. He once seemed a serious man. He wrote books, lectured on the Constitution. Now he seems unserious, frivolous, shallow. He hangs with celebrities, plays golf. His references to Congress are merely sarcastic: "So sue me." "They don't do anything except block me. And call me names. It can't be that much fun." 

In a truly stunning piece in early June, Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein interviewed many around the president and reported a general feeling that events have left him—well, changed. He is "taking fuller advantage of the perquisites of office," such as hosting "star-studded dinners that sometimes go on well pastmidnight." He travels, leaving the White House more in the first half of 2014 than any other time of his presidency except his re-election year. He enjoys talking to athletes and celebrities, not grubby politicians, even members of his own party. He is above it all.

On his state trip to Italy in the spring, he asked to spend time with "interesting Italians." They were wealthy, famous. The dinner went for four hours. The next morning his staff were briefing him for a "60 Minutes" interview about Ukraine and health care. "One aide paraphrased Obama's response: 'Just last night I was talking about life and art, big interesting things, and now we're back to the minuscule things on politics.' ''

Minuscule? Politics is his job.

When the crisis in Ukraine escalated in March, White House aides wondered if Mr. Obama should cancel a planned weekend golf getaway in Florida. He went. At the "lush Ocean Reef Club," he reportedly told his dinner companions: "I needed this. I needed the golf. I needed to laugh. I needed to spend time with friends."

You get the impression his needs are pretty important in his hierarchy of concerns.

***

This is a president with 2½ years to go who shows every sign of running out the clock. Normally in a game you run out the clock when you're winning. He's running it out when he's losing.

All this is weird, unprecedented. The president shows no sign—none—of being overwhelmingly concerned and anxious at his predicaments or challenges. Every president before him would have been. They'd be questioning what they're doing wrong, changing tack. They'd be ordering frantic aides to meet and come up with what to change, how to change it, how to find common ground not only with Congress but with the electorate.

Instead he seems disinterested, disengaged almost to the point of disembodied. He is fatalistic, passive, minimalist. He talks about hitting "singles" and "doubles" in foreign policy.

"The world seems to disappoint him," says the New Yorker's liberal and sympathetic editor, David Remnick.

What kind of illusions do you have to have about the world to be disappointed when it, and its players, act aggressively or foolishly? Presidents aren't supposed to have those illusions, and they're not supposed to check out psychologically when their illusions are shattered.

***

Barack Obama doesn't seem to care about his unpopularity, or the decisions he's made that have not turned out well. He doesn't seem concerned. A guess at the reason: He thinks he is right about his essential policies. He is steering the world toward not relying on America. He is steering America toward greater dependence on and allegiance to government. He is creating a more federally controlled, Washington-centric nation that is run and organized by progressives. He thinks he's done his work, set America on a leftward course, and though his poll numbers are down now, history will look back on him and see him as heroic, realistic, using his phone and pen each day in spite of unprecedented resistance. He is Lincoln, scorned in his time but loved by history.

He thinks he is in line with the arc of history, that America, for all its stops and starts, for all the recent Supreme Court rulings, has embarked in the long term on governmental and cultural progressivism. Thus in time history will have the wisdom to look back and see him for what he really was: the great one who took every sling and arrow, who endured rising unpopularity, the first black president and the only one made to suffer like this.

That's what he's doing by running out the clock: He's waiting for history to get its act together and see his true size.

He's like someone who's constantly running the movie "Lincoln" in his head. It made a great impression on him, that movie. He told Time magazine, and Mr. Remnick, how much it struck him. President Lincoln of course had been badly abused in his time. Now his greatness is universally acknowledged. But if Mr. Obama read more of Lincoln, he might notice Lincoln's modesty, his plain ways, his willingness every day to work and negotiate with all who opposed him, from radical abolitionists who thought him too slow to supporters of a negotiated peace who thought him too martial. Lincoln showed respect for others. Those who loved him and worked for him thought he showed too much. He was witty and comical but not frivolous and never shallow. He didn't say, "So sue me." He never gave up trying to reach agreement and resolution.

It is weird to have a president who has given up. So many young journalists diligently covering this White House, especially those for whom it is their first, think what they're seeing is normal.

It is not. It is unprecedented and deeply strange. And, because the world is watching and calculating, unbelievably dangerous.

Sunday
Sep292013

All the world's a stage - Obama, The Bad Actor

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players,
They have their exits and their entrances...

Wm. Shakespeare's "As You Like It"

The whole world doesn't know what to make of America anymore--in part because of our Another tedious drool of words...president, but also referring not only to foreign policy but to U.S. domestic economic policies, to the limits America has imposed on itself. The nations all ask the same question: Why does the greatest country in the world allow itself to be led by an inexperienced, naive, dilettante who just dabbles in light-weight parlor politics not knowing anything at all? - This is not the time for 'Amateur Hour' on the world stage!

U.N. members find time to Kindle, text, email, apply lipstick, check watch & read paper. In just five years of Mr. Obama, world leaders do not understand what are really his higher strategic aims, have real doubts about his seriousness and his judgment, and read him as unsure and covering up for his unsureness with ringing words.

"A heated scorching assessment of the president's role as a foreign-policy actor came from a former senior U.S. diplomat, a low-key and sophisticated man who spent the week at many of the U.N.-related functions." "World leaders are very negative about Obama," he said. They are really very "disappointed, feeling he's not really in charge. . . . The Western Europeans don't pay that much attention to him anymore."


Saturday
Sep142013

Bush-Clinton 2016 Presidential Campaign On

Behind the scenes - Loud whispers for Bush vs. Clinton Race!


RINO Jeb & DEMO Hillary - Both "Big Government" advocates & "Big Spenders & Big Taxers" Liberals.It looks like the "King Makers" of the political parties have already chosen their 2016 Presidential candidates. It's time to dole out the Testosterone, Viagra and Estrogen to stimulate the masses into an excitement reaching up to a frenzied orgasmic vote over the most expensive Presidential erection election in U.S. history-- $1 Billion dollars for each candidate.

What's really different in this next big election cycle? No new ideas...not much, except a lot of political Washington B.S. promises and more corruption. Sound cynical? It is, because this side-show is an insulting mockery of the democratic process for choosing leaders. So, it will be quite a dog and pony show as the electorate again takes its part on stage as the receiving end of the act - if you aren't the lead dog, then the view never changes!

RINO - DEMO Obamacon Party Logo

*The Obamacon Party* - A choice between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton is interchangeable, both liberals will spit out warmed-over pap what voters want to hear in their Presidential 2016 campaign races.

The choice is obnoxious, the fix is already in and everyone has to look surprised when this duo match-up is announced. These announcements must be early on in this 2016 Presidential election cycle because of the historic campaign run-up costs so that donors can be assured of which candidates run and PACs funded along with campaign organizations.  

Both "Progressives" aka "Marxists"Is there any "Change" we can believe in here? - Read On...

On June 29, 2004 Hillary said, "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." During a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco. Standing before an audience of wealthy Democrats, Clinton criticized the Bush administration's tax cuts for upper-income Americans not mentioning who the "upper-income" Americans were as many small business owners who qualify making over $200 Thousand dollars, an arbitrary income ceiling for upper-income earners.  This is more demagoguery of 'the haves'' verses 'the have-nots' and the unfairness of income inequality - marxist tenets.

On September 2, 2005 Hillary said, "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Hillary Clinton accused the big oil companies of profiteering — and used demagoguery like "trying to make money off the backs of this tragedy", however, with the off-shore rigs and refineries shut down along with the delivery delays due to Katrina, the available supplies were stressed by market demand pricing on available supplies. 

On May 29, 2007 Hillary said, "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few..... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." It was at the Granite State Independent Living Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire outlining what Clinton called her "progressive vision to aid the middle class [and] address rising income inequality" to disabled seniors. (Code name for 'middle class' is "bourgeoisie" and 'progressive' is "left-wing socialist")

On June 4, 2007 Hillary said, "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." at a political Forum broadcast on CNN's "The Situation Room". She was addressing the difficulty of reaching a political consensus on issues such as health insurance reform and climate change concluding the government knows better about how to allocate private individuals' properties for the good of the people.

On June 4, 2007 Hillary said, "I certainly think the free-market has failed." Clinton was being asked what could be done to reduce the frequency of abortion in the United States. She began by speaking of the necessity of assisting young people in making the right choices and concluded that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. Hillary deliberately overlooks parental responsibility due to couples not married with 77% of black babies born out of wedlock. This follows closely to Hillary's "It takes a village" thinking about the government engineered child raising as the answer to the lack of family units. Is personal responsibility too much to ask and promote to individuals instead?

Saturday
Aug312013

Obama wants Nihilism - It means nothing to me!

"No other occupant of the White House can it be said that he owed his understanding of the political process to a man and a philosophy so outside the American mainstream, or so explicitly dedicated to opposing it. The following provides an analysis of the political manual that Saul Alinsky wrote, which outlines his method for advancing radical agendas. The manual was originally titled “Rules for Revolution” which is an accurate description of its content. Later, Alinsky changed the title to "Rules for Radicals."

"Some may want to reconsider what Obama may have really meant on election eve 2008 when he told his followers: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

“Nihilism” comes from the Latin nihil, or nothing, which means not anything, that which does not exist. It appears in the verb “annihilate,” meaning to bring to nothing, to destroy completely.

Nihilism is also the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.  - and so how does an Alinsky radical's "political nihilism" affect our "American Way of Life"?

"The Alinsky radical has a single principle - to take power from the "Haves" and giveSaul Alinsky it to the "Have-nots". What this amounts to in practice is a "political nihilism" - a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people” (who, in the fashion common to dictators, are designated as such by the revolutionary elite). This is the classic revolutionary formula in which the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process."

"Unlike the Communists who identified their goal as a Soviet state - and thereby generated opposition to their schemes - Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve - socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system."

"By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends." This particular strategy has worked well under Obama to engage other supporters outside his circle. A major complaint is that Obama never offers detailed plans or reasons as he goes forward in his administration. So, without naming his end game, whether it be the Federal Budget Plans, Spending Programs or Presidential policies Obama avoids Congresswoman Nancy Pelosiconfrontational opposition and division overall to build support for his ultimate goals. I believe Nancy Pelosi said it best, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." - so just don't ask for any details to avoid opposition or division ...Sound familiar?