BOMBSHELL: Comey Held Secret Obama White House Meeting Before The Inauguration

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Caller.

Comey has been caught in one lie and he has lied about many more things it is time to investigate his perjury then bring charges as need be.

FBI Director James Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama two weeks before Trump’s inauguration and may have deliberately misled Congress about it, according to an email sent by National Security Advisor Susan Rice that GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham partially unclassified.

The meeting — which Comey never previously disclosed to Congress — occurred in the White House on Jan. 5, 2017. It included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Comey. The topic of the meeting was potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice wrote in an email written the day before the inauguration.

The National Archives gave Grassley and Graham “classified and unclassified emails” about the meeting.

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.

Grassley and Graham stated on their websites they “were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice.”

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” the two senators told Rice.

“In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book,’” they continued.

Rice is scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Feb. 22.

Grassley co-authored the letter to Rice as chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Graham as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.


Steve Wynn Claims Gun Free Zone Would Have Prevented The Vegas Shooting


H/T AmmoLand.

This claim made by Steve Wynn proves he is stupider than he looks.

I can not imagine Stephen Paddock saying this sign says it is a gun free zone so Damn I will have to go elsewhere to commit murder.

U.S.A. –-( Steve Wynn is the billionaire CEO of Wynn Resorts. Steve Wynn and his wife Elaine Wynn are also a gun control advocates.

The Wynns have long banned guns from their casinos and resorts. Steven Wynn’s latest statements give us an insight into the minds of the gun grabbers.

Mr. Wynn believes that the attack that Stephen Paddock launched killing nearly 60 people would never have been able to happen at any of his properties. He thinks that the fact that his hotels and properties are gun-free zones would have stopped the massacre that occurred in Las Vegas.

Somehow a crazed madman who committed the crime of murder nearly 60 times and committed over 500 other crimes would have obeyed a sign forbidding guns according to Steve Wynn.

History has shown us that so-called “gun free zones” do not work. These places only create soft targets for mass shooters like that of Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook.

“We don’t allow guns in this building unless they’re being carried by our employees, and there’s a lot of them,” Wynn told Fox News about if the shooting could have taken place at one of his hotels.

This statement shows the mindset that the leftist has, and that they believe gun free zones work, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

In a stroke of irony, Steve Wynn uses an armed security attachment to protect him and his family. Wynn thinks that is OK for people with guns to protect him and the people he loves, but that right doesn’t apply to the average citizen. This idea is the elitist thinking of the elite left.

Wynn Resorts in Las Vegas has also started searching every person that enters the resort including going through all their bags and personal items since the shooting that took place at the Mandalay Bay hotel and casino that targeted a country music concert. The Wynns are only applying this TSA similar approach at their Las Vegas properties.

Steve Wynn’s wife and co-founder of Wynn Resorts, Elaine Wynn, is going to chair an advisory board to help get a Bloomberg backed proposal that would require background checks for private firearms sales in Nevada.

Elaine Wynn released a statement saying “Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill isn’t a political issue; it’s common sense.” This statement doesn’t address the fact that none of these ideas would have stopped the rampage in Las Vegas.

This proposal is the same proposal that Micheal Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing group, Everytown For Gun Control, pushed in Washington State last year. In the end, the initiative passed and is now law within the state. The NRA and other gun rights groups have vowed to fight the push to make this ballot initiative the law.

The pro-gun control crowd is pushing the idea that this gun control law is needed to close the mythical “gun show loophole” by implying that gun shows do not require background checks. Even though this is false, this seems to be a favorite tactic of Everytown For Gun Control. Everytown implemented this deceptive message in Washington State.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at


Flagstaff Judge Rules Police Video of Suspect Inadmissible as “Prejudicial”

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

The only reason I can think of for this video being prejudicial is it showed the defendant was bloodied and afraid of being killed.

The video also showed the defendant was glad to see the police.

Photo Taken Days after the Shooting


Arizona – -( The trial involving the Flagstaff shooting of a mob of drunken fraternity members who attacked an 18 year old pistol owner, is almost over.

The shooting occurred in October of 2015.  As of 27 April, 2017, the jury is considering the case.

A motion for mistrial by the defense has been refused by the trial judge, Dan Slayton.  Slayton previously took the unusual stance of ruling the police video from the scene as “prejudicial”.  In the video, a bloodied and hysterical 18 year old, Steven Jones, tells the police how glad he is they are there, and he thought he was going to die.

Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”.

The defense cried foul. From

Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”. The defense cried foul. From

A Coconino County Superior Court judge Thursday morning denied a mistrial for prosecutor misconduct in the Steven Jones murder trial.

But he ordered that the jury be given an instruction about inaccurate statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument that would diminish Jones’ claims of self-defense.

Before the trial began, prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea convinced the judge to preclude statements Jones made to witnesses and police at the scene of the October 2015 shooting that left one student dead and three others wounded on the Northern Arizona University campus.

Immediately after the incident, Jones told another student that he acted in self-defense, and when he was in a police car after being detained, he was recorded on camera as saying, “Why were they going to hurt me?” and “I thought I was going to die.”

Consider if, in the police video, Steven Jones had said, “They were evil and deserved to die”. Do you think it would have been admitted as evidence? Want to take any bets?  Of course it would have been admitted, to show the shooters state of mind. But clear evidence of the shooter’s state of mind, taken minutes after the shooting, was excluded, because it favored the defense.
The jury has been out for about a day. It hasn’t turned in a verdict yet.  If it comes up with a guilty verdict, expect an appeal.
There is considerable punishment simply in the process.
The Coconino County Prosecutor’s office is the same office that prosecuted Harold Fish.

I do not know who the prosecutor in this case is, but Michael J. Lessler is the Chief Deputy Attorney in Coconino County. He is the prosecutor who was in charge of the infamous Harold Fish case. Lessler claimed, for example, that Fish’s use of a 10mm and hollowpoint bullet were somehow indications of malice.

An appeals court finally reversed and remanded Fish’s conviction in 2009. Harold Fish had been in prison for three years. The Harold Fish prosecution was so over the top, it resulted in the Arizona legislature making three separate changes in Arizona law, to stop the abuses obvious in the case, and to insure that Harold Fish was able to obtain a new trial.

Fish died not long after being released from prison.

The shooting was originally covered in the media as a “school shooting”. That was the take before details started coming out that indicated a self defense case.

Things like the shooter immediately surrendering to police, and thanking them for being there.  Things like being outnumbered by a mob of drunken fraternity members (all the people shot had blood alcohol far beyond being legally drunk, and traces of marijuana). Things like the Steven Jones having no alcohol or drugs in his blood. The person who was killed was shot at a range of two feet or less, as he was moving toward Jones.

News coverage today is far more even than it was in the early days after the shooting.

The verdict will be very interesting.

If the verdict is not guilty, will the LA Times will issue a retraction over its early coverage?

We will know the verdict in a few days.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

R. Lee Ermey Has Some Advice For Americans On Firearms–And Liberals Are Sure To Hate It.

Leave a comment


Semper Fi Gunny Semper Fi.


Source: R. Lee Ermey Has Some Advice For Americans On Firearms–And Liberals Are Sure To Hate It – Matt Vespa

DOJ Documents Reveal Fast & Furious Weapons Linked to 69+ Killings

1 Comment

This is from AmmoLand.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder are responsible for this failed gun control attempt that lead to these 69+ deaths.

Hopefully Attorney General Trey Gowdy will indite them,try them and send them to prison where they richly deserve to be.

I will go as far to say Obama and Holder belong on death row as accessories after the fact of these murders.

From December 2012 to March 2016, 94 Fast and Furious weapons were seized; Fast and Furious weapon found in “Chapo” Guzman hideout

Fast & Furious Weapons : Guns seized in 2011 trafficked from Texas to Mexico. Read more:  Under Creative Commons License: Attribution  Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Fast & Furious Weapons : Guns seized in 2011 trafficked from Texas to Mexico.

Washington, DC – -( Judicial Watch announced released Justice Department documents showing that weapons sent from the U.S. into Mexico as part of the Obama administration’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning program have been widely used by major Mexican drug cartels.

According to the new records, over the past three years, a total of 94 Fast and Furious firearms have been recovered in Mexico City and 12 Mexican states, with the majority being seized in Sonora, Chihuahua and Sinaloa.

Of the weapons recovered, 82 were rifles and 12 were pistols identified as having been part of the Fast and Furious program.  Reports suggest the Fast and Furious guns are tied to at least 69 killings.

Fast and Furious was a Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gunrunning” operation in which the Obama administration allowed guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels in the hope the weapons would be recovered at crime scenes.  Fast and Furious weapons have been implicated in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of other innocents in Mexico.  Prior reports tie Fast and Furious weapons to at least 200 deaths in Mexico alone.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents last month in response to a March 17, 2016, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seeking the following:

  • All records identifying the locations (including, but not limited to, crime scenes and the locations of seizures) at which firearms – that were identified during the course of or due to Operation Fast and Furious – have been recovered by law enforcement personnel.

The documents show 94 Fast and Furious firearms were seized, 20 were identified as being involved in “violent recoveries.”  The “violent recoveries” involved several mass killings:

  • June 30, 2014 — One 7.62mm rifle recovered in Tlatlaya, Estado de Mexico.  This is the reported date and location of a shootout in which 22 people were killed.
  • May 22, 2015 — Two 7.62mm rifles recovered from the site of a massive shootout in Rancho el Sol, Michoacán, that left one Mexican Federal Police officer and 42 suspected cartel members dead.
  • August 7, 2015 — One 7.62mm rifle was among five firearms reported as recovered from an abandoned stolen vehicle in which three dead shooting victims were found in Parral, Chihuahua.
  • January 29, 2013 — One 7.62mm rifle seized in Hostotipaquillo, Jalisco is reportedly related to the assassination of the town police chief, Luis Lucio Astorga and his bodyguard.
  • January 11, 2016 — One .50 caliber rifle seized from the Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Los Mochis, Sinaloa, where he was (re)arrested.

In October 2014, Judicial Watch uncovered the fact that an AK 47 rifle used in a July 29, 2013, gang-style assault on an apartment building that left two people wounded was part of the Obama Department of Justice’s Fast and Furious gunrunning program.

“These documents show President Obama’s legacy includes one of gunrunning and violence in Fast and Furious,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “As the production of documents from the ATF continues, we expect to see even further confirmation of Obama’s disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder’s prediction that Fast and Furious guns will be used in crimes for years to come.”

In 2014, Judicial Watch litigation forced the disclosure of Fast and Furious documents to Congress after years of delay.

Judicial Watch has a related active lawsuit seeking access to all records of communications between the Department of Justice and the House Oversight Committee relating to settlement discussions in the Committee’s 2012 contempt of Congress lawsuit against then-Attorney General Eric Holder (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:13-cv-1344)).

The contempt citation stemmed from Holder’s refusal to provide documents to Congress related to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.

About Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

For more information, visit:

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

KATIE COURIC: Silent Majority of Gun Owners WANT Gun Control [VIDEO]

1 Comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

Are Katie’s delusions chemically induced or are they from mental illness?

Is Katie off her rocker or does she make a strong case? Do you want more gun-control?

During a May 13 appearance on NBC’s Today, Katie Couric previewed her upcoming gun control documentary by claiming a “silent majority” of gun owners want more gun control.

Couric said these things during an interview conducted by Matt Lauer, who began the interview by countering FBI statistics and claiming mass shootings are on the rise. In September 2014, the FBI released a highly politicized study claiming a rise in mass shootings, only to have the authors of the study recant months later and admit they created data to make the study outcome fit a preconceived conclusion.

Yet Lauer claimed mass shootings are on the rise, and Couric played along without hesitation. In fact, she built on Lauer’s mass shootings comment to suggest more gun control is needed, and a “silent majority” of gun owners support it.

Couric said:

Ninety percent of the public really favors universal background checks. And after Sandy Hook, everyone thought this was a watershed moment, something would be done. And then when Manchin/Toomey died in the Senate, I couldn’t understand the disconnect between public opinion and our elected officials.

Politics: Chelsea Clinton promises her mom’s Supreme Court will gut the 2nd Amendment

1 Comment

This is from CainTV. 

I want to address the Not Trump and the Not Cruz crowd.

You mental midget’s along with the Establishment Republicans are making a clear path to the White House for Hillary.

Wake Up and Grow Up get behind either Cruz or Trump so we can take back the White House.

It has been a DemocRat wet dream for as long as I can remember to gut the Second Amendment and disarm Americans.

I find it ironic that John F.Kennedy a Life Member of the NRA was killed by a Marxist/Socialist Lee Harvey Oswald.

The same Lee Harvey Oswald today would be a DemocRat voter.

Wave buh-bye to your rights.

Back in February, I argued that the death of Antonin Scalia instantly made the 2nd Amendment the biggest issue of the 2016 presidential election.  Since then, Republicans have been busy bickering about transgender bathrooms and who they hate more: Trump or Cruz. While they indulge in that incredible waste of time, the left is cruising toward a future where the Constitution is decimated by a statist Supreme Court pick.

Obama has already nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s position on the bench. He’s about as anti-2A as they come, and if he’s confirmed, you can be 100% certain that he’ll overturn 2008’s District of Columbia v Heller decision. That would eliminate the concept of gun ownership as an individual right, basically gutting the 2nd Amendment.

He may or may not make it through the nominating process, but rest assured.  If he doesn’t, Hillary can’t wait to appoint someone else who will eliminate your rights. As Chelsea Clinton is all too happy to admit; her mom has plans for Heller…

In other words, “With Scalia dead, we can finally destroy your 2nd Amendment protections the way we’ve always wanted to, and we’re pretty excited about that.”

Remember, these are the people who constantly promise you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, and that no one wants to destroy your ability to “hunt and protect your family.”

As we head toward November, never forget that Hillary views the Constitution as nothing more than an insignificant obstacle. At heart, she’s an authoritarian gun-grabber who, if it furthers her agenda and pleases her donors, will gleefully shred every single one of your rights.


Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

I think the Globull Warming/Climate Change crowd would have a hard time sell their bull to the people that have 30-40+ inches of Globull Warming in their states.

My column this week examines climate chaos claims and realities – and pays tribute to my friend Professor Bob Carter of Australia, who died unexpectedly this week, and to his insightful observations on climate change and adapting to the vicissitudes of Mother Nature.

I’m sending it before I have to head out again to shovel out some more from what they are saying is the (no doubt manmade) snowstorm of the century for the Washington, DC area: perhaps 30 inches or more.gore bare naked

Remember when the gurus of climate change assured us just a few years ago that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is anymore”?

Dr. Bob Carter understood that climate frequently changes, and we must prepare to adapt.


Dangerous manmade global cooling, global warming, climate change and extreme weather claims continue to justify what has become a $1.5-trillion-per-year industry: tens of billions spent annually on one-sided research and hundreds of billions sent to crony corporatists to subsidize replacing dependable, affordable carbon-based fuels with unreliable, expensive “renewable” energy.

Some 50 million acres of US crop and habitat land (equal to Wyoming) have been turned into corn-for-ethanol farms, biofuel plantations, and wind and solar installations. American forests are being converted to fuel for British power plants. Towering turbines butcher birds and bats, while Big Wind is exempted from endangered species rules that would cost fossil fuel companies billions in fines and send their execs to jail for such carnage. (But if you’re saving the planet, what’s a few million birds and bats a year?)

Climate chaos is likewise the foundation for endless, punitive government policies and regulations intended to keep oil, gas and coal “in the ground.” Crony politicians pass laws and unelected bureaucrats impose rules that transfer taxpayer and consumer wealth, decide which companies, industries and workers win or lose, and control people’s lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards.

Research and ruling classes benefit, while poor, minority and blue-collar families suffer – and Africans are told they must be content with wind and solar energy because, as President Obama put it, “if everybody has got a car” and air conditioning and a big house, “the planet will boil over.”

Climate Crisis, Inc. jealously guards this power and money train. The IPCC, EPA and NOAA spend billions in tax dollars to publish horror stories about runaway temperatures and looming disasters. Mike Mann sues anyone who disparages him or his work.Sheldon Whitehouse and Jagedish Shukla demand that anyone who disputes manmade disaster claims be prosecuted for “climate denial.”

Now a new Paris climate treaty says the “ultimate goal” is to stabilize atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that will “prevent dangerous [human] interference with the climate system” – under the assumption that CO2 now drives climate change and weather events.

The Paris accord stipulates that developed nations must reduce their emissions, regardless of impacts on economies, employment or families. This means they must de-carbonize, de-industrialize and de-develop – while they give trillions of dollars in cash and free technology to developing countries like Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, for climate “reparation” and “mitigation.”

Developing countries need try to reach their voluntary goals only if now-wealthy nations make those wealth transfers – and if reducing their emissions will not interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of eradicating poverty, malnutrition and disease, and improving living standards and life spans.

This means fossil fuel use and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb – and US, EU, Canadian and Australian sacrifices will have no effect on stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels, much less controlling Earth’s ever-changing climate or weather, again assuming CO2 does determine climate.

But what if this dynasty is built on a foundation of errors, miscalculations and exaggerations – or worse: on manipulation, fabrication and fraud? The house of cards would tumble down, the catechism of climate cataclysm would go the way of other vanished religions, and the power and money train would derail.

Before his untimely death January 19, Dr. Robert M. Carter, former director of James Cook University’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory and expert on historic and prehistoric climate change, offered succinct analyses of climate forces, fears and realities, underscoring how fragile the climate chaos claims are.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, he always emphasized. It is a plant-fertilizing trace gas (400 ppm or 0.04% of the atmosphere), essential for photosynthesis and life on Earth. Rising CO2 levels are increasing crop, forest and grassland growth, improving ecosystems and wildlife, and feeding more people. In fact, the 50 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1981 and 2010 fertilized an 11% boost in plant cover worldwide. Moreover, current carbon dioxide levels are quite low relative to their levels across geological time, meaning terrestrial, fresh water and oceanic plant life is currently starved for CO2 by comparison.

The real scientific debate, Professor Carter noted in his book Climate: the Counter Consensus and other works, is about the direction and magnitude of global humaneffects, and their likely significance in the context of natural climate change – which has been occurring ever since Earth developed its oceans, atmosphere and climate. Indeed, modern temperatures are not unusually warm, compared to many previous periods in the historic and geologic record. My friend’s other insights are equally important.

* The primary temperature records relied on by the IPCC and EPA are far too short to be a useful tool for policy making and are inadequately corrected for the urban heat island effect and other errors. One analysis of these records found errors of 1-5 degrees C (1.8-9.0 F) for 1969 data in certain regions, when the claimed warming for the entire twentieth century was only 0.7 deg C (1.3 F); errors for records in the early century are likely even greater. Reliance on these records is thus misplaced

* Recent warming trends in Greenland and the Arctic are not alarming in rate or magnitude compared to other similar and totally natural warming periods over the past 250 to 10,000 years, as recorded in explorers’ log books and geological evidence.

* When we consider those climate records, the positive feedback effects of rising carbon dioxide levels (such as enhanced water vapor in the atmosphere), negative feedback effects (more low level heat-reflecting clouds, for instance), significant natural sources of more atmospheric CO2, and the declining “greenhouse” effect of each additional CO2 molecule, it is unlikely that conceivable human carbon dioxide emissions will cause “dangerous” warming or other climate changes in the future.

* The rate and magnitude of the reported 1979-2000 warming are not outside normal natural variability, nor are they unusual compared to earlier periods in Earth and human history. There is likewise no unambiguous evidence that humans have caused adverse changes such as melting ice, rising sea levels, rainfall or droughts, or “extreme weather” over the past 50 years.

* Moderate warming will reduce human mortality, whereas colder weather will increase suffering and deaths, especially if energy and climate policies make heating homes less affordable.

* IPCC computer climate models have thus far not been able to predict warming or other climate changes accurately for even short 10-year periods. It is therefore highly unlikely that they can do so for 100 years in the future. Therefore, they should not be used as the basis for energy and economic policies.

* The IPCC does not even study climate change in its entirety, or all the complex, interrelated forces that cause periodic warming, cooling and other changes. It analyzes only variations allegedly caused by humans, and assumes that all recent and future changes are human-caused and dangerous. Its analyses, conclusions and recommendations therefore do not form a credible basis for public policies.

Carter’s ultimate policy recommendation was that climate hazards are overwhelmingly natural problems, and should be dealt with by preparing for them in advance, and adapting to them when they occur.

Whether the threats are short-term (hurricanes, floods and blizzards), intermediate (droughts) or long-term (warm or cool eras), preparation must be specific and regional in scale, for the perils vary widely by geographic location and a nation’s state of technological advancement. If governments prepare properly for natural hazards, their countries and communities will also be ready for human-caused climate disruptions, should they ever occur.

Professor Carter’s jovial Aussie persona will be sorely missed, but his insights and legacy will live on.

How Gun Control Advocates Could Take Your Guns With One Law


This is from Godfather Politics.

If this law was to pass I can see hundreds of thousands of lost or stolen gun reports. 

I thought about whether I should write an article on how gun control advocates might go about confiscating guns with almost no physical force. They might actually do it just like this.

“So, I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”

This was a question that was asked in the great town hall gun show starring Barack Obama.

It’s simple: Pass a law that if people do not turn in their guns they will be fined $250,000 for each gun.

Will everyone turn in their guns? Probably not. But any use of them would almost bankrupt the typical gun owner.

Look what happened to the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were fined $135,000 and had their bank accounts emptied.

Consider what New York City is doing with a draconian law that could fine someone up to $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun for any number of sexual preferences.

Read related article: “You Could be Fined $250,000 for using the Wrong Pronoun.”

The government doesn’t need to go door-to-door for full gun control. It only needs to make it very expensive for gun owners ever to show or use their guns.

In fact, since most guns are registered, the government could send gun owners a bill for $250,000 for every registered gun. The only way gun owners could get the bill cancelled is to turn in their guns. Failure to do so could be very expensive.

criminals love gun control

Of course, criminals would not have to worry about these huge fines if their guns had been stolen since they could not be traced to them. Any gun owner who did not report his gun stolen would be out of luck.

Like drugs, guns could be purchased at a premium on the black market, but if an otherwise law abiding citizen ever used an illegally purchased gun in self-defense, the shooting victim could very likely sue the shooter. He could claim that he only broke into the house because there was a law prohibiting gun ownership.

If guns had not been outlawed, he never would have broken into the house.

BREAKING: Defense Secretary Slips Up, Reveals Obama Admin LED IRAN Straight to Our Sailors

1 Comment

This is from Conservative Tribune.

All I have to say is W.T.F?


It doesn’t matter if “the 3 a.m. phone call” comes in the middle of the day. Not only will the Obama administration not answer it, but they’ll aid our enemies instead.

First came the fact that President Barack Obama refused to address the arrest of 10 of our sailors by the Iranian military after their boats had mechanical trouble at sea. Then came news that the Obama administration had offered the Iranians an apology for the release of the sailors.

Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid.

The news came from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, during an interview on TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch shortly after Iran’s arrest of the sailors had come to light.

“I understand that (Secretary of State) John Kerry has indicated, look, when he got word, he and Ash Carter called the Iranians to help take care of our Navy guys, because they had some mechanical problems,” Gohmert said.

I’ll give you a second to pick your jaw off the floor.

“When our Navy ships have problems, we don’t call Iran. We call the rest of the Navy. We can call the Air Force, the Army, the Marines, Coast Guard. We don’t call Iran,” Gohmert said.

He also took a swipe at Kerry’s closeness with Iranian officials, noting how the former Democrat presidential nominee had the son of Iran’s foreign minister as the best man at his daughter’s wedding.

“But I guess, you know, if you have relatives that have weddings that involve the people that are in charge in Iran, well, maybe you feel that comfortable,” Gohmert said. “But you know, Dana, there are secrets on every military ship we have … that has no business being in the hands of the Iranians.”

But, hey — the Obama administration has given the Iranians everything else via the Iran deal, why not give them Navy secrets, as well?

This shows just how derelict the Obama administration was in its duty. Not only did they apologize to the Iranians, they actively delivered our sailors into the clutches of their military.

This rot starts at the top — and if Barack Obama can apologize to Iran, he can also apologize to the American people.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: