“Never Let A Dead Child Go To Waste”

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Photo Credit: Rhys AsplundhBarack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo, and their cohorts followed Rahm Emanuel’s advice to “never let a good crisis go to waste” when they used the Sandy Hook shooting to renew their assault on the Bill of Rights. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell added, in effect, that one should never let a dead child go to waste if one can exploit him or her for political gain.

“…the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side.”

This is difficult, if not impossible, to explain away. Suppose instead that an armed teacher or staff member had stopped Adam Lanza after two murders the way Pearl High Assistant Principal Joel Myrick stopped would-be mass murderer Luke Woodham. A case study for The American Rifleman’s Armed Citizen feature is not what Dianne Feinstein, Ed Rendell, and their cohorts need in order to eliminate the Second Amendment a piece at a time. They need a mass murder that is “so horrific” that it will manipulate the public, and legislatures like New York’s, into acting before they have time to think. Their modus operandi is to exploit grief, shock, and outrage for political gain the way itinerant rainmakers once exploited the plight of drought-plagued farmers, and quacks and charlatans peddle miracle cures to desperate cancer patients.*

Ed Rendell is not the only anti-Second Amendment leader who has done this. As stated by Joshua Horowitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,

A historic opportunity now lies before us to curb the gun violence destroying our families and communities. For the sake of future generations, let us hope our elected officials seize it.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Tyranny Before Us

/35 Comments/in , /by

At a recent dinner party I had the opportunity to ask an elderly acquaintance a question I thought she was uniquely qualified to answer. You see, she grew up in Germany in the 1930’s just as Adolph Hitler came to power. She was injured during the Allied bombing of her home and then married an American soldier whereupon she settled in America.

I asked her, “Katherine, do you see any similarities between Hitler’s Germany in the 1930’s and America today?” My question prompted a swift, if not indelicate, kick under the table from the hostess, a dear friend. Fortunately, Katherine is a bit hard of hearing so my gaffe went unanswered, or at least ignored. The hostess then pulled me aside and began to explain the ‘delicacies’ to me.

You see, to this day Katherine adores Adolph Hitler. Furthermore, many if not most Germans of her vintage do so as well. I was shocked! Didn’t Katherine and her fellow German octogenarians understand that everyone is supposed to hate Hitler… everyone?!

My hostess, now flanked by her husband, explained further. Hitler in the 1930’s, and even after his death, was extremely popular. He did many great and good things for a nation suffering terribly and needlessly under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He built roads, bridges and hospitals. He put people back to work while he rebuilt the economy. In less than ten years he accomplished the miraculous … even while he began to commit the unspeakable.

With my indiscretion now mercifully behind me I realized I had just experienced a teachable moment. That is, a tyrant so universally reviled for committing such horrific acts could actually be revered by the kind, decent, and normal man or woman next door. But how could they be so fooled? How could they witness such evil and still admire the author of it? Especially with over sixty years of hindsight.

The answer is remarkably simple; Adolph Hitler was not always a tyrant. As he rose to political power his vision for a better Germany lifted his nation from the depths of a severe depression and the humiliation of defeat. But more importantly, he gave his countrymen hope for better future while he returned to them their pride in their homeland, the pride they so passionately desired.

Tyrants are not uniformly evil. They are capable of great good and small kindnesses. They smile, they laugh and they love their children. But eventually they embrace the evil which defines their tyranny, and then those who gave them their power begin to pay a terrible price.

First a tyrant tells you he cares for you, then he presumes to think for you, then he simply tells you what to do. This is the essence of tyranny.

Then, those who presume to question his methods are ridiculed and then silenced. Those who resist his usurpations are imprisoned and finally eliminated… and all for the expressed good of society. Mankind has witnessed this progression time and again since the beginning of time.

No nation, no people are immune to the temptations which empower a tyrant and blind them to his evils. When conditions are ripe the right man with the right image saying just the right things can sweep to power with surprisingly little effort… and even less scrutiny. Indeed, America itself is not immune to the Siren’s call of the ‘Great Man’ promising prosperity ahead in exchange for more power… his power. If Germany, which gave the world Luther, Bach and the most educated citizenry in the world can succumb to the wiles of a Hitler, so too can Americans relinquish just a bit more liberty for the mere promise of security and prosperity.

I believe the potential for tyranny lives in each of us, waiting for opportunity to beckon. That is why it is so necessary for each of us to remain vigilant for the tyrant-to-be walking amongst us. He won’t be sporting horns or a long red tail. He will be handsome to most and charming to the rest. He will be articulate in speech and well dressed. He will always be pleasant to the eye and ear.

And he will be recognized for what he truly is early on by only those few who are inclined to remember history so as not to relive it. Others, less wise, will be deceived immediately and perpetually. They will disregard the harsh lessons of history and cling to the vague promises of the here-and-now.

Now to the question before us. Do I believe President Obama has the capacity to be a tyrant? Most certainly. He is no more immune to the temptations of ultimate power than the rest of us. And as he seeks to find “reasonable” steps to address the ills of our nation, the concerns about his understanding of the Founder’s intent begin to pile up.

This brings me to my conclusion. I am not so concerned here with tyrants themselves but with how they come to be. How did China, with more centuries as an advanced civilization than any other, inflict upon itself, and the world, Chairman Mao? How did Russia permit Stalin as its brutal leader? And Germany… Hitler? Italy, Mussolini?

I believe that a tyrant must have four conditions extant for him to fulfill his ruinous destiny. One, a compliant and sympathetic press. Two, a supportive or subjugated legislative branch. Three, a powerful police force which swears fealty to the tyrant himself. And four, an unarmed or significantly under armed citizenry. Of course, it is critical to note that if the press were to operate unencumbered by its own biased ideology or by the tyrant himself, conditions two through four simply could not survive. Nonetheless, at the end of the the day the tyrant can, and will, permit no meaningful opposition. Thankfully, not all four of these conditions currently exist in America… not yet.

As America struggles through its current crisis the very human hope for a better future becomes overwhelming, sometimes clouding judgment. And it is in this hope that danger for our republic lurks. For when a nation puts its hope in nothing greater than a man that nation stands on the precipice, blind to the danger just one step ahead. That is why America was built not on the personality of men but on the principles good men and women ponder and articulate… principles free men and women cherish and contend for.

America has survived some 240 years through great tragedy and trauma but it has always rested on those principles. But today I worry whether those principles are even recognized let alone exercised, as we sacrifice our citizenship to the lust for cheap labor, our sovereignty on the altar of climate change and our prosperity to our own greed and ignorance.

So then, absent a return to the principles upon which the American experiment was founded, and by which it once flourished, it will continue to flounder and eventually fail, both as a nation and as a people. Then, we Americans will elect a tyrant who promises prosperity even while his tyranny consumes us… and we will have only ourselves to blame.

Law-Abiders Under the Bus

/2 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: kb35President Obama and the bipartisan Gang of Eight in Washington who want to create a “pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal aliens have sent a message loud and clear to those who follow the rules: You’re chumps!

Have you patiently waited for months and years for the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to slog through your application? You’re chumps!

Have you paid thousands of dollars in travel, legal, and medical fees to abide by the thicket of entry, employment, health, and processing regulations? You’re chumps!

Have you studied for your naturalization test, taken the oath of allegiance to heart, embraced our time-tested principle of the rule of law, and demonstrated that you will be a financially independent, productive citizen? You’re chumps!

Unrepentant amnesty peddlers on both sides of the aisle admit their plan is all about votes and power. Arizona Republican senator John McCain continues his futile chase for the Hispanic bloc. Illinois Democratic representative Luis Gutierrez is openly salivating at the prospect of millions of new illegal aliens — future Democratic-party dependents of the Nanny State — who could be eligible for Obamacare and a plethora of other government benefits despite clear prohibitions against their participation.

Read more from this article HERE.

The Stuff of Third World Tyrants

/10 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama is not just a radical leftist; he is obviously so ensconced in his ideology that he believes — or wants you to believe — that anyone who opposes him must have sinister motives.

One of his recurring themes is that some Republicans would work with him but can’t do so for fear of reprisal from Grover Norquist on taxes, the National Rifle Association on guns, the conservative House caucus, radio talk show hosts and your garden-variety racists, who allegedly oppose Obama just for sport.

In mid-January, Obama accused the “gun lobby” of “ginning up” fears that the federal government would use the Newtown, Conn., shooting tragedy to seize America’s guns, saying, “It’s certainly good for business.” Is that how presidents should talk?

Obama suggested that GOP congressional opposition was based not on principle but on the fear that unless it resisted Obama’s gun-grabbing schemes, it would lose its precious NRA funding. As if the American public agrees with Obama on this issue any more than it did on Obamacare. As if Obama truly cares whether the American public agrees with him on this issue (other than as a means to an end) any more than he cared about the public’s view on Obamacare.

Indeed, this is either record-breaking myopia or sophisticated Orwellian deception. Few things are more palpable on the political scene today than the groundswell of grass-roots support for the right to own firearms under the Second Amendment. It is intrinsic to the American character.

Read more from this story HERE.

Carbon Use And Prosperity – A Striking Relationship

/0 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: cgp greyIn his inaugural address on January 21, President Obama invoked great ideals of human dignity, equality, and most especially “progress” to justify his second-term agenda, a cornerstone of which will be a crusade to limit humanity’s use of carbon.

In fact, nothing could be more antithetical to the goal of advancing the human condition than restricting carbon consumption. A look at the relationship between living standards and humanity’s carbon utilization over the past 200 years, as shown in Figure 1, below, makes this perfectly clear.

Fig. 1 Average global GDP per capita as a function of carbon use, 1800 to 2010. GDP in 2010 dollars.

The story that Figure 1 tells is remarkable; it is, perhaps, one of the grandest stories ever told. It shows how, over the past two centuries, by using carbon in ever-increasing amounts, the human race has lifted itself out of hopeless poverty and misery to achieve a modicum of dignity and happiness. Look at that line reaching up, in direct proportion to global carbon use, from an average global income of $180 per person in 1800 to $2,200 in 1960 to $9,000 today; that is progress.

Of course, we still have a ways to go. The current $9,000 average world income is just a fifth of the $45,000 U.S. average, yet we still have some poverty here. Still, the achievement is incredible. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned for president on the promise of “a chicken in every pot,” and millions found the offer compelling. Today, in the United States, minimum wage is $7 per hour, and chicken sells for less than $2 per pound; so, a person working at minimum wage can buy a pound of chicken with about 17 minutes’ labor. This is freedom from want, indeed, delivered not by the New Deal, but by the terrific expansion of our use of carbon.

Read more from this story HERE.

Letter to Obama: “We the People” Will Never Surrender our Guns

/12 Comments/in , /by

Mr. Obama,

What part of ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do you not get? Actually you and your ilk know very well what that means, you just don’t like it. You’re trying to dupe ”We the People” out of our God given right to protect ourselves against your regime. Look in the mirror Mr. Obama. Do you see God?

The inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes the right of the people to bear arms. The founders of our great Constitution knew that folks like you would come along. Our Constitution which you declared ‘fundamentally flawed’ legally secured these rights many years ago. The right to bear arms is not up for debate. The Constitution, the ‘Law of the Land’, shall prevail and the 2nd amendment will stand regardless of your foolish attempt to ‘change’ it.

To control the narrative though, you and yours are using ‘distraction’ as a tactic to mask your true agenda. But not all of your ‘subjects’ will fall for your deception. There are two main distractions we’ve identified. One distraction misdirects us to the argument of which kinds of arms and accessories etc. we should be legally allowed, while the other one misdirects us to the ‘legal’ relationship between such things as the Supremacy clause, the Commerce clause, Congressional and Executive powers, Nullification, the 10th, 14th and 2nd amendments. These distractions define your ‘sleight of hand’. Here’s some bad news for you and yours, Mr. President, it won’t work. Your distractions are being recognized as such by increasing numbers of Americans every day. You won’t get away with disarming ‘We the People’!

It ‘s true that some unsuspecting citizens have taken the bait and are engaging in conversation about what may become socially acceptable limits on the 2nd amendment. We hear arguments about what kinds of firearms and magazine limitations your ‘subjects’ should be allowed under your regime. Some lawmakers are unable to resist these tactics and are proposing ‘feel good’ legislation which would only whittle away at our right to bear arms and assist you in achieving your ultimate goal. Your administration is nothing if it isn’t transparent. ‘We the people’ are drawing attention back to the real issue before us. Your administration is employing incrementalism and distraction in order to deny law abiding, American patriots our right to bear arms, any arms if you get your way!

In case you missed it earlier, the 2nd amendment is not up for debate. The Constitution did not ‘grant’ Americans the right to bear arms. It just ‘legally’ secured that right and only through due process can citizens be denied their legal rights. Your anti-Constitutional declarations, executive orders or any other legislative action contradicting the 2nd amendment will never fly!

You and yours are burning the very Constitution you promised to preserve, protect and defend. History will not look fondly upon a President who at every opportunity tested the will of the people. We Americans recognize and will defend our rights. You’ve managed to make this the critical issue of our time.

Remember when you said ”They cling to guns err religion err” as part of your lecture on how the bitter small town folks in the Midwest deal with hardship? There are plenty of Americans in and beyond the Midwest who understand why the 2nd amendment is so important. History shows that there have been many millions of innocent, unsuspecting citizens murdered by tyrants who successfully disarmed them. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro are a few of the tyrants on that list. A question on the minds of many Americans is whether your name, Mr. Obama, will be added to that list.

The enumerated powers of Congress in article 1 of the Constitution do not include infringement of the 2nd amendment, and neither do the powers of the President. The Supremacy and Commerce clauses do not negate the right to bear arms, nor does the 10th amendment. It would be just as unconstitutional for a state to deprive its people of the right to bear arms as it would be for Congress or you to do so.

Millions of gun owning, law abiding citizens across America won’t allow you or anyone else to deprive them of their 2nd amendment right. ‘We the people’ recognize the great sacrifices of those who’ve defended our Constitution and will not let their sacrifices be in vain. We stand with the founders of the Constitution and shall retain our God given right to bear arms!

Sincerely,

‘We the People’

Federal Money to the States Isn’t ‘Free’

/2 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: philiptaylorptRichmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle recently made what should be a simple point to understand, but it’s unfortunately one that few people seem to appreciate. Writing about the supposed win-win situation whereby states expand Medicaid coverage and the federal government foots most of the bill, Hinkle reminds readers that the “free” federal money isn’t really free:

In Virginia, officials estimate expanding Medicaid would cost the state $137.5 million over nine years, while the state would receive $23 billion from Washington.

Other states report similar figures. California expects to enroll up to 910,000 residents for a cost beginning at only $46 million a year, while collecting $44 billion in federal funds over a six-year period. An Illinois study estimates that state would spend about $2 billion on expanded Medicaid over the next decade, while reaping $22 billion in federal funds. According to Danielle Holohan, who is in charge of New York’s insurance exchange, Medicaid expansion “actually works out to be an enormous savings” for the Empire State. And so on.

This all sounds great—if you are a state official. But if you are a lowly taxpayer, it leaves out one rather significant point: Where is all that federal money coming from?

No great mystery: Most of that money would come from taxpayers who live in the very states that are looking forward to these supposed windfalls. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, if every state signed up for Medicaid expansion, then the federal government would spend nearly $1 trillion over the next nine years—paid for by you.

Read more from this article HERE.

The Obama Simulacrum

/2 Comments/in , /by

If I’m following this correctly, according to one spokesperson for the Marine Corps Band, at Monday’s inauguration Beyoncé lip-synced to the national anthem but the band accompanied her live. However, according to a second spokesperson, it was the band who were pretending to play to a pre-recorded tape while Beyoncé sang along live. So one or other of them were faking it. Or maybe both were. Or neither. I’d ask Chuck Schumer, the master of ceremonies, who was standing right behind her, but he spent the entire performance staring at her butt. If it was her butt, that is. It might just have been the bulge of the Radio Shack cassette player she was miming to. In an America with an ever more tenuous grip on reality, there’s so little to be sure of.

Whether Beyoncé was lip-syncing to the band or the band were lip-syncing to Beyoncé is like one of those red pill/ blue pill choices from The Matrix. Was President Obama lip-syncing to the Founders, rooting his inaugural address in the earliest expressions of American identity? (“The patriots of 1776 . . . gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.”) Or maybe the Founders were lip-syncing to him as he appropriated the vision of the first generation of Americans and yoked it (“preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”) to a statist pitch they would have found utterly repugnant.

The whole event had the air of a simulacrum: It looked like a presidential inauguration, but the sound was tinny and not quite in sync. Obama mouthed along to a canned vocal track: “We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” That’s great! It’s always reassuring to know the head of state is going to take issue with all those people wedded to the “belief” that America needs either to shove every granny off the cliff or stake its newborns out on the tundra for the wolves to finish off. When it comes to facing the music, Obama is peerless at making a song and dance about tunes nobody’s whistling without ever once warbling the real big numbers (16 trillion). But, like Beyoncé, he’s totally cool and has a cute butt.

A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath: “Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Unconstitutional and Idiotic ‘Women-in-Combat’ Move

/4 Comments/in , /by

There is a reason why in the Olympics there is women’s competition and men’s competition, why there is a professional men’s basketball leagues and a professional women’s basketball leagues, and why basic military recruit training for men is different from basic military recruit training for women. In weight, stamina, and strength there are major differences between men and women; in the overwhelming number of cases women cannot keep up with men in those areas—-however there may be some unique exceptions.

The action taken by the Secretary of Defense yesterday, bypassing Congress in the decision making process, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who sat there wide eyed without saying a word, imposed another of Obama’s radical “diversity” agendas upon the US Armed Forces. The radical decision flies in the face of the many studies completed by the US Marine Corps, US Army, and Congress over the last 10 years, those studies resulted in Congress setting rules that prevented women from being drafted and from being assigned to front line infantry ground combat units.

Recently two female enlisted US Marines were allowed to train with male Marines, in order to qualify for assignment to infantry ground combat units; they failed miserably and their video interviews are truly revealing. One of the trainees said they couldn’t keep up with their male counterparts during the sustained and long period of training required to qualify, that their legs gave out from under them, that their stamina was not up to their male counterparts, and that they could no longer carry their heavy back packs; they asked to be relieved (they weren’t under the added pressure of being under an enemy firing weapons in an attempt to kill them).

At a minimum, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee should review the data gathered from that most recent physical endurance test, conduct immediate oversight hearings, and make public the results of the extensive research completed on the study of “Women in Land Combat” gathered by the US Marine Corp last year, in which those two female Marines were involved. The data does not support Panetta’s move to put women into front line ground combat units, and before the radical decision becomes de facto law, Congress and the American people need to know why women in front line ground combat units will not work and how it will degrade the Combat Effectiveness of combat units. Panetta’s announcement is not a “gift” to female military enlisted personnel who have expressed very little interest in being ordered into front line ground combat infantry units.

For four years, the Social Experiments on Diversity has been forced upon a captive US military force whose senior flag leaders have not objected to Obama’s civilian appointees at DOD orders that degrades Combat Effectiveness; each new initiative further damages the unit cohesiveness and moral of the US Armed Forces.

Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives the power to the Congress “To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and Naval Forces.” There is a legal requirement to notify Congress of changes regarding women in the military in advance of the issuance of the order Panetta signed, including the requirement that the Congress be provided with a report on the impact it would have upon the Selective Service System, but the Republican leadership of Congress has not asked for the report—Congress must act in this case! Panetta was wrong in circumventing Congress, but it’s up to the members of Congress to assert their Constitutional right and duty to provide oversight.

Every study completed on “Women In Combat” has come to the conclusion that women in combat are less likely to survive front line ground combat operations than men. It is extremely dangerous to imbed women in tip of the spear military units like SEAL Teams, the Green Berets, Rangers, Special Forces, Airborne units, the Delta Force, etc. because they will experience difficulty in required stamina and strength that will slow down the units they are assigned to; they will not be able to shoulder the same sized back packs over extended periods of time in combat operation; they don’t have the same strength to meet and overcome an enemy combatant on the ground, face to face; and the unavoidable normal male/female sexual attraction within the units damages unit cohesion/unity (note: a unit’s Combat Effectiveness is degraded when female members become pregnant—this has become a very serious problem for US Navy ships scheduled to depart on 6 month deployments, because so many female crew members become pregnant that the ships can’t be fully manned).

There is absolutely no evidence that putting female military personnel in front line ground infantry units will strengthen the US Armed Forces—that is the trumped up story being promulgated by the Obama Administration which is another outright lie.

It is one thing for a woman to be able to qualify, using the same rigorous qualification criteria as men, in order to be assigned to a front line ground combat infantry unit. After they have successfully completed the same rigorous qualification requirements as men, have been imbedded in front line ground combat infantry units, it will be another thing to be engaged in “sustained” combat operations for many months on end without a break, many times operating in mud without sanitary hygiene facilities during the monthly menstrual cycles. The combat environment is very different from what the majority of Americans understand it to be.

Ask yourself if you would want your daughter or granddaughter to be drafted and then be required to serve in front line ground combat infantry units, during sustained combat operations where men in an enemy force are trying to kill them.

________________________________________________

Captain Joseph R. John, a combat veteran, is a 1962 graduate of the United States Naval Academy who retired from the US Navy after a long and distinguished career. He currently is the President of the Combat Veterans Training Group and is the founder of the Combat Vets for Congress PAC.

Two Cases of Media Malpractice: Newtown and Benghazi

/2 Comments/in , /by

In the Newtown Connecticut School shooting, when 911 was called, help came.

When Americans called 911 while under attack in Benghazi, no one came to help.

One stays in the headlines of the media, the other one is quickly forgotten.

After watching the Benghazi dog and pony show hearings yesterday in Washington, it is apparent the citizens of the United States will never get the truth out of this administration. The absence of details as to exactly what happened before, during and after the Benghazi murders, is astonishing. Such as: Orders were given to not help Americans under attack in Benghazi. Who gave that order? Why?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had 4 months to skirt answering any questions on Benghazi. The reasons given: A wine tasting tour in Australia, a bout with the flu, exhaustion, a concussion, a blood clot, and many think she would have come down with the “vapors,” had not her 25 million campaign debt been retired earlier this week.

She appeared at the hearings yesterday ready to not really answer any of the glaring questions, but only to obfuscate and run out the clock. Her quip of: “What difference does it really make” as to why Americans died in Benghazi showed a callous disregard for the disaster that happened under her watch.

Conveniently each politician had only a few minutes to ask a question of Hillary and get an answer. Most of the questioners couldn’t resist their time in the spotlight to get long winded and as a result, didn’t have time to follow up when Hillary gave a non answer.

Was this by design or just incompetence?

The main stream media has been a willing accomplice to this administrations attempt to bury Benghazi and doesn’t have the appetite to upset the apple cart of lies and deceptions.

Only when there was a hint of sex scandal involving CIA chief Petraeus and his paramour, did Benghazi temporarily get elevated to front page news by the “bread and circuses” media.

But the media has been front and center in the war on “assault” rifles.

The Newtown shooting has captured the media’s attention and fits hand in glove with the pre planned assault on the 2nd amendment.

Every detail that fits into the narrative the media is trying to foist on the public, is made known and kept on the front page……Every truth and detail of the Newtown shooting that does not fit the agenda is buried.

Such as where is the drug screen test of the shooters blood? It seems many of these mass shooters had a cocktail of anti depressant/psych meds in their bloodstreams at the time of their crimes. Coincidence?

What other warning signs about the crazed lone gunmen are being overlooked in the rush to assault law abiding citizens gun rights? What violent video games did he obsess on? Did mental health professionals know about his potential violent blow up?

As a result of the Benghazi hearings yesterday, we know we are not being told the truth. We also know we are not being told the whole truth about the Newtown Shooting. Is there any journalistic curiosity left in the main stream media?

That’s what the difference is Hillary, there is a double standard in the media when it comes to what truth they want America to hear.
___________________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.