Man mocks gators and swims, becomes first Texas gator attack fatality in 200 yrs

Leave a comment

This is from the

Darwin claims another idiot the herd gets thinned again.



A Texas man was killed in an alligator attack during an ill-advised swim at night in a bayou marina. It was the first gator attack fatality in Texas since 1836. (Photo: Alligator floats at 94th PGA Championship at Kiawah Island, South Carolina.) Photo by Sam Greenwood/Getty Images

A Texas man died after he mockingly took a late-night swim in an alligator-infested marina close to the Louisiana border. Against verbal warnings and signs that cautioned against swimming in the area, Tommie Woodward jumped into the water — and almost immediately started calling for help. An eyewitness who knew the man saw him dragged underwater a couple times before he disappeared altogether.

CBS news reported July 3 that the Orange County Sheriff’s Office were called to Burkart’s Marina early Friday morning after reports that 28-year-old Tommie Woodward and an unidentified woman went swimming in a bayou and had subsequently suffered being attacked by an alligator. Sheriff’s deputies and a Texas game warden found Woodward’s body roughly 200 yards away after about two hours of searching.

Although police originally thought the man was swimming with a woman, Justice of the Peace Rodney Price told KFDM-TV in Beaumont that the woman, who had been on a dock at the marina, only jumped into the water after the man screamed for help. KFDM-TV also reported that witnesses said they had seen the man and woman at a bar at the marina right before the attack.

“One minute he’s there and then the next minute he’s gone,” Michelle Wright, who works in the restaurant at the marina, told KFDM-TV in a separate report. “I asked him please do not go swimming, there’s a bigger alligator out here, just please stay out of the water.”

A 10-foot alligator had been spotted in the bayou the week before. Signs had been posted soon afterward.

Price said Woodward ignored both the verbal warnings and the posted “No Swimming Alligators” sign. He also seemed to mock the reptiles before going in the water. “He removed his shirt, removed his billfold,” he said, “someone shouted a warning and he said ‘blank the alligators’ and jumped in to the water and almost immediately yelled for help.”

In her retelling of the incident, Wright said, “Next thing I know this girl is screaming an alligators got him, an alligator’s got him and I grab a flashlight trying to zoom it over the water, trying to find him. The next thing I know, I don’t even know how long it was, I saw his body floating face down and then he’s up there for a couple seconds and then he gets dragged back down and pulled off.”

The unidentified woman was uninjured. She said later that she thought she felt the brush of the alligator’s while she was in the water.

Although alligator attacks in Florida are common, Gator Country owner Gary Saurage told KFDM-TV that it was the first fatal alligator attack in Texas that he knows of this year. Texas state Game Warden Mike Boone told the station it was the first fatal attack he knows of in Texas and he’s been a Game Warden more than 22 years. After the Houston Chronicle dug into gator attackhistory, it found that the bayou attack marks the first one in almost 200 years, when a man was killed near the Trinity River in 1836.


Gun owners for ‘gun control’ useful to anti-gunners for now

Leave a comment

This is from

These Quislings will pay the price for their back stabbing lies and traitorous ways.

After they serve their master needs, they will be attacked as extremist gun nuts.


Democrat-supporting “Republican” gun owner Kemp stumps for more Bloomberg-financed “gun control.” Everytown for Gun Safety

“A responsible gun owner on why he supports common-sense gun laws,” Everytown for Gun Safety tells its Facebook followers, presenting a poster featuring Paul Kemp of Portland, Ore. Kemp warns against private sales being “a loophole,” and says “that’s a threat to me and law abiding gun owners everywhere.”

“I’m a registered Republican and a gun owner,” Kemp told the media after his brother-in-law was killed with a stolen gun in a“gun-free” mall. “But I secure my weapons, and I’m not going to give them up.”

He may not be willing to give his up, but he’s perfectly willing to throw standard capacity magazine owners under the bus. As for being a “Republican,” Kemp nonetheless supported Michael Bloomberg’s effort to reelect an anti-gun Democrat for governor (John Kitzhaber resigned in February following state and federal investigations into criminal allegations).

Per his Facebook page and Twitter feed, Kemp is not only for the background check/registration fraud and magazine bans,but he’s also against open carry of long guns, he enthusiastically spreads Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns) propaganda, and he’s a fan of Mark and Gabby…

We’ve seen the antis do this before. We saw “Average Joe” presented as a Bloombergian poster boy for guns on the farm. We saw present its version of a “proud defender of the Second Amendment.”

In addition to gun owners for infringements, we’ve also seen two other developments: Phony “third way” gun groups and gun dealers for “gun control.” And now we have a gun club owner and dealer helping impose criminal penalties for noncompliance with anti-gun edicts on his patrons.

At a time when grassroots gun rights activists are fighting the Bloomberg AstroTurf money machine, at a time when it bought a measure in Washington State and is buying one in Nevada, and is trying to pass a bill in Oregon, Joe Deaser, owner of the Capital Gun Club, a member’s only facility that offers a “sophisticated [and] elite shooting experience,” comes down squarely on the side of the gun-grabbers. Deaser thinks California-style infringements extended nationwide would be a capital idea, and that fears of a registry are “unfounded,” in spite of states doing it, and in spite of the National Institute of Justice confirming the “effectiveness [of universal background checks] depends on … requiring gun registration,”

“Federal law” Deaser says, “bans the creation of such a registry.” Not only is the prohibition subject to being rescinded and changed, but no less a source than Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said “the language of proposed federal legislation left a door open for a new kind of record of sales between private sellers — as opposed to sales by federally licensed gun dealers — a record that may not be subject to the registry ban.”

Instead, Deaser dismisses “the extreme fringe” who raise these concerns as ‘ridiculous” [and] “just paranoid” as he makes a point of traveling to Oregon to call for prior restraint infringements in front of Floyd Prozanski’s Judiciary Committee. If people who point out the obvious are so disparaged, what must he think of those who flat out will not comply?

Two things are certain: Violent criminals, who are protected by law from gun registration requirements, won’t be slowed down one bit by what Kemp and Deaser are endorsing. And the enemies of gun rights, who are more than happy to accept their aid and comfort, will be using whatever turf is ceded to launch their next assault.

Actually, make that three things: Today’s gun owners hailed as “responsible” by the antis will be tomorrow’s “uncompromising extremists” when their usefulness is over and they stand in the way of the next phase in an unrelenting war on guns.


Bad Daddy’s Burger bar bans lawful guns

1 Comment

This is from the

Bad Daddy Burger Barn most not mind losing money that firearms owners would spend there.

I guess Bad Daddy does not care about the possibility of dead customers due to his gun free zone.

As we all know gun free zones equal target rich zones.

de9ee472005be5f1a4c02ed1cd9e1c17 (1)

Bad Daddy’s Burger Bar Bans Lawful Guns photo mix by Liston Matthews

American society is slowly getting used to the idea that good people carry guns. Some, like the gentle sheepdog, go about their daily business, with no one the wiser. But if trouble arises, they are willing to jump in, bare the fangs, and stand against the predators of society, as reported by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Still others, more akin to the porcupine will use their defensive weapons to defend their own lives, and those of their immediate loved ones. Mind you, there is not a clear, distinct line between these two. If Mr. Pork U. Pine sees a child being victimized, he may quickly morph into Mr. Sheep Dog, unsheathing his hidden fangs against the predator.

In Tennessee as in many other ‘free’ states, not only are people getting used to the aforementioned idea, more and more are carrying (no permit required) in their vehicles, and about half a million Tennesseans have opted to get training, background checked, and get a carry permit.

But some elected employees, their bureaucratic minions, and some business owners still seemingly are incapable of discernment relative to armed citizens. This column has reported extensively on the struggle between legally armed citizens and the Town of Farragut. A number of businesses, also, have been reported on in this column.

And there are still other holdouts – Today, in search of a new eating experience, we decided to stop into Bad Daddy’s Burger Bar, but were turned away by the sign at the door. A phone call from the parking lot resulted in a conversation with a manager. He advised that they have multiple locations (Denver, CO, Knoxville, TN, Charlotte, NC, Triangle, NC, Greenville, SC, Winston-Salem, NC), and they do not welcome lawfully armed individuals.

Permit holders are advised to honor their wishes and stay away. Advise your unarmed friends, too, that so-called gun-free zonestoo often become predator-empowerment-zones.


Liberal ‘lies’ certainly must cover the Second Amendment debate

Leave a comment

This is from the



Dave Workman



Today’s Town Hallonline entries include an essay by Kurt Schlicter that posits that liberals lie about everything, and while he points to subjects ranging from global warming to illegal immigration and terrorism, he overlooks one subject completely: Guns and Second the Amendment.

Schlicter could easily have done an entire column on the mountain of canards launched by liberals against the right to keep and bear arms, in Washington State during the Initiative 594 campaign, and across the country during every effort to erode the individual right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, many liberals cling to the myth that the Second Amendment applies only to service in state militias, as if the Supreme Court had not twice in the last decade ruled just the opposite.

By no small coincidence, Schlicter’s column appears the day after Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson warned of possible terrorist attacks at shopping malls, specifically the Mall of America in Minnesota. He advised people to be “particularly vigilant.”

Fox News has picked up on the story, and so has the Seattle However, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergenblows off the potential threat as so much nothingness, what some people still call a “Sept. 10 mindset,” alluding to how the nation was caught off-guard by the 9/11 attack.

There is one strategy more people might employ if they’re concerned about terrorist attacks in American shopping malls. Carry a gun. With more than 11 million citizens legally licensed to carry, including more than 480,000 in just the Evergreen State, packing a pistol to the mall seems prudent if only just to thwart parking lot muggings, or the rare attack by a nut case.

Alas, many malls are clearly posted off limits to firearms. It’s the same in many government buildings, which are owned by the public. In Olympia, following a Jan. 15 incident involving some open carry people who took rifles into the House viewing gallery, open carry in the House and Senate chambers, as well as public hearings, was prohibited, while concealed carry still is apparently okay.

An offshoot of that is the posting of signs around various government buildings in Olympia. Carry a sidearm in a casual manner while going about one’s business seems to be okay. Carry a firearm in a way to deliberately draw attention to one’s self – as a “political statement” – or in a manner that intimidates and alarms another person, and you’re crossing the line.

If liberals lie about everything, as Schlicter contends, perhaps the worst of these prevarications is the lie they tell themselves. You know the one: Prohibiting lawful carry by law-abiding citizens inside businesses, public buildings, parks, theaters, shopping malls, sports stadiums or on city streets somehow makes them safer. That sort of self-delusion gets people killed because history has taught us that terrorists, criminals and lunatics either don’t read the signs, like the one above, or ignore them when they do.

Or, perhaps they don’t ignore them. That is, if someone is intent on committing mass mayhem, where would be the safest place to do that without anticipated opposition? Why, a gun-free zone, of course. It’s easier to murder people when they don’t shoot back.

The liberal lie about guns has another side. Many liberals are gun owners, and many, though not all, are convinced that supporting increasingly tighter restrictions on gun ownership will somehow never affect them personally. Those restrictions are designed to keep guns out of someone else’s hands, they believe. A background check here, a waiting period there, a registration and licensing mandate; it’s like the principle of slowly boiling the water in which a frog is swimming. The frog doesn’t realize until it’s too late that he’s being boiled to death.

Liberals vote for liberals who pass gun laws while espousing “support” for the Second Amendment rights they ultimately wish nobody would exercise. One might find this particularly prevalent on editorial boards of major newspapers, which get into righteous huffs when the First Amendment comes under attack.

If Schlicter has it right, that liberals lie about everything, keep that in perspective the next time a liberal politician swears “nobody is going to take your guns.” If they’ve lied about everything else, what they’re saying about guns is a whopper.


‘Anti-gun’ attorney arrested for gun at airport

1 Comment

This is from

The liberal attitude is, the rules apply to thee but never me.


A leading local civil rights attorney was arrested over the weekend at Cleveland Hopkins Airport for having a concealed handgun in his carry-on bag, The Plain Dealer reported Sunday. David Malik, the original attorney for the family of 12-year-old Tamir Rice who was slain by police in November, spent the night in jail after a .22 caliber handgun and a box of ammunition were discovered by airport security.

“What’s interesting about David is he is such an anti-gun person,” Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told the press. “He’s such an anti-violence person, and of all the things for him to get arrested for, that really surprises me.”

It may surprise Loomis, but prominent anti-gun activists personally involved with guns, sometimes illegally, is a phenomenon gun rights advocates have pointed out before. Such revelations are generally accompanied with comments suggesting no small amount of self-serving elitism.

That was the case a year ago, when SAFE Act Dwayneproponent Ferguson was arrested for illegally having a gun on his person at a Buffalo elementary school, prompting a police lockdown. As with Malik’s case, the violation was said to be unwitting, although Ferguson had the gun on his person, and he did not come forward and notify police. Also similar to Malik’s circumstances, there was no shortage of community voices coming forward with testimonials.

More serious than that is the case of California State Senator Leland Yee, who supported all manner of citizen disarmament edicts before his arrest on political corruption, racketeering and gun trafficking charges. And Lee, the subject of a four year FBI probe, is hardly the only anti-gun politician to run afoul of the law on guns.

Retired Chicago Alderman Richard Mell ( the father-in-law of disgraced former governor and felon Rod Blagojevich), who helped craft the city’s since-overturned ban on handguns, used his political connections to rewrite the registration law and create an “amnesty” after he’d neglected to do the paperwork needed to keep his. And the late Frank Melton, former mayor of Jackson, Miss., routinely violated “gun laws” he demanded everyone else to obey.

What will happen with Malik is uncertain at this writing. Gun rights advocates may note the “hoist on his own petard” irony, but in the interests of justice ought to want equal considerations for all, with no harsh penalties. At the same time, note will be taken of“troubling special treatment” as was criticized in the case of Democrat Texas State Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, another prominent anti-gun figure caught with a gun at an airport.

The real question is what are “gun control” advocates doing carrying guns in the first place? That it does not strike them as logically and morally insupportable is a curiosity those who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms chalk up to hypocrisy.

‘Vindictive prosecution’ subjects self-defense to ‘community standards’

1 Comment

This is from

This goes beyond Vindictive prosecution to Vindictive persecution.

If the Marin County District Attorney is elected, I say it is time he faces a recall.


A Marin County doctor who had charges dismissed against him earlier this month is still facing a grand jury indictment obtained by a prosecutor determined to see him convicted, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.

Dr. James Stephen Simon, a surgeon and occupational medicine and aerospace medicine practitioner with no criminal history, had more than 50 registered firearms, the majority being sporting weapons and collector’s items, and 200 boxes of ammunition, seized by police following a self-defense shooting in 2014.

Marin County District Attorney Ed Berberian invites citizens to "surrender" firearms in a "buyback" program.

Marin County District Attorney’s Office (YouTube screen capture)

Simon had already been acquitted of” attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm” on January 7, when Marin County Judge Kelly Simmons “dismissed charges against [the] 71-year-old doctor accused of shooting a 70-year-old man who followed him to his Corte Madera home in a road-rage confrontation.”

The ruling, following a two-day preliminary hearing, appeared to be the end of a “case [that] had been prosecuted personally by Marin County District Attorney Ed Berberian.”

The shooting itself seems understandable, regardless of any “offending” traffic maneuver that precipitated it, which reportedly was pulling his Smart Car around a Mercedes stopped at an intersection when it did not proceed after the light turned green.

The doctor, with his wife in the car, was followed home by 69-year-old retired mortgage broker William Osenton, who, after ““tailgating and accelerating and driving extraordinarily aggressively,” drove his car so doggedly in pursuit that it was struck by the garage door when Simon tried to close it.

Rushing into the house to retrieve a handgun, Simon fired a warning shot, and then fired two shots that struck the trespasser.

The 911 call made immediately after the shooting reveals a distraught Simon telling the operator to “You’ve got to help me. Help him.” It also shows how citizens attempting to do the right thing can make admissions unnecessary to getting emergency assistance that a defense lawyer would advise against.

For his part, this appears personal for DA Berberian, who was able to refile after a preliminary hearing dismissal without running legally afoul of double-jeopardy prohibitions, and submit his case to a grand jury in which the defense is barred from cross-examining prosecution witnesses.

But the move has been questioned by a former prosecutor now working as a dense attorney, asking why Berberian is doing it now, and asking if this is a “vindictive prosecution,” or if there is new information.

Noting he is prohibited from commenting on grand jury proceedings, perhaps the DA’s mindset can be gleaned from a statement that is on public record. Berberian had previously maintained the shooting was inappropriate and illegal due to what he called “community standards.” In Marin County, those standards place a political “stigma” on gun ownership, and Berberian’s personal hostility to gun ownership, where he goes so far as to invite citizens to “surrender” their firearms to a “buyback” program, is seen by some as an “unhealthy obsession.”

In the doctor’s case, Berberian revealed the standards he wants imposed when he argued Simon sought a confrontation and should have locked himself in his home (presumably making sure he could safely usher his wife in first).

Berberian also criticized the number of firearms Simon owned, alleging that showed the doctor was “hypersensitive,” and prone to using unlawful deadly force due to “a victimization complex.”

A past reliable source tells this column “the arraigning judge that dismissed the case and ordered the return of the guns was incensed and admonished the DA but noted ‘It is very difficult to imagine a Marine county grand jury siding with a … gun owner.'”

The source further surmises this will end up as backdoor confiscation of Simon’s collection, and if the prosecution is successful, it may even have wider implications under a new reporting law that allows for gun confiscation when family members, who may have incentives beyond loving concern, allege incapacitation.

The other point illustrated is that until he could get to his home to retrieve a firearm, the doctor and his wife were practically defenseless. California’s “may [not] issue” permitting system,currently being contested, means in areas where the political climate embraces Berberian-style “community standards,” those without strong local and state government connections are left with calling 911 as their only recognized “legal” option for escalating defensive force to a level necessary to stop a physical threat.

Jane Fonda claims she was not against U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, vets disagree


This is from

Hanoi Jane did the things she did because she despised our troops and delighted in their deaths.

If Hanoi Jane did not oppose our troops, Why did she have over the service numbers or social security numbers given to her by prisoners of war?

This action led to beatings and torture of these prisoners and may have even resulted in prisoners dying.

Hanoi Jane should have been charged with treason convicted then shot.



“Hanoi” Jane Fonda claims she was not against U.S. soldiers when she was in Vietnam in 1972. STF / AFP/Getty Images



Jane Fonda, the actress known as “Hanoi Jane” for her actions during the Vietnam War, was the target of about 50 veterans and supporters when she appeared at the Weinberg Center for the Arts, the Frederick News-Post reported Saturday. Fonda, Paige Jones said, claimed she wasn’t “against” American soldiers when she went to Vietnam.

“Whenever possible I try to sit down with vets and talk with them, because I understand and it makes me sad,” she said in response to a question submitted to her.

“It hurts me and it will to my grave that I made a huge, huge mistake that made a lot of people think I was against the soldiers.”

“But those people out there,” Fonda said of the protesters outside the theater holding signs that read “Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never” and waving flags.

“I’m a lightning rod,” she added. “This famous person goes and does something that looks like I’m against the troops, which wasn’t true, but it looked that way, and I’m a convenient target.

So I understand.” Fonda, however, expressed no regret for going to the Communist country.

Mike McGowan, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969, had a different point of view.

“We feel what she did was so egregious,” he said, adding that Fonda’s actions “really cost lives.”

“(We want to) let everybody know we haven’t forgotten,” added Tommy Grunwell, another Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam. Frederick County Councilman Tony Chmelik joined the protesters in honor of his father, who served in the military, Jones said.

Fonda’s choice of words did not go unnoticed by critics on Twitter. Twitchy said that Fonda “was against the soldiers, whether she knew it or not.”

“She ONLY says she regrets her actions led people to think she was against US soldiers,” one person said on Twitter. “She is not sorry she went!”

“Fonda gave aid and comfort to the enemy which cost US troops lives and injuries,” another person said. “She was and IS aTRAITOR.”

In 2012, Fonda said she regretted sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun in 1972.

She did much more than just pose for photos on an enemy battery, however. She also allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool in interviews conducted by Radio Hanoi.

“I don’t know what your officers tell you, you are loading, those of you who load the bombs on the planes.

But, one thing that you should know is that these weapons are illegal and that’s not, that’s not just rhetoric,” she said in an interview broadcast in July 1972.

“They were outlawed, these kind of weapons, by several conventions of which the United States was a signatory — two Hague conventions.

And the use of these bombs or the condoning the use of these bombs makes one a war criminal.”

“We have understood that we have a common enemy -– U.S. imperialism,” she said in another interview.

“We have understood that we have a common struggle and that your victory will be the victory of the American people and all peace-loving people around the world.”

In 2013, she angrily responded to veterans protesting her appearance in “The Butler,” a movie in which she played Nancy Reagan. “Get a life,” she told the Hollywood Reporter at the time. Now, after more than 40 years, she wants veterans to believe she really wasn’t against them during the Vietnam War.




Police chief sues to overturn will of the voters, make gun rights ‘alienable

Leave a comment

This is from

If  St. Louis Police chief Sam Dotson is elected get him recalled if he is appointed pressure politicians to remove him from office.

Not a damned thing

Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.




When Missourians voted overwhelmingly in favor of Amendment 5, which amends the Missouri constitution to state that the right to keep and bear arms in “unalienable,” they did so in defiance of the wishes of St. Louis Police chief Sam Dotson, who tried (unsuccessfully) to keep the measure off the ballot in the first place. One might think that with 61 percent of the electorate having voted for the amendment, he would find himself forced to admit defeat.

As the Maryville Daily Forum reported last week, though, attributing even that modest degree of wisdom to Chief Dotson would be overly optimistic:

Opponents of a gun-rights amendment recently approved by Missouri voters filed a legal challenge Wednesday asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the election results on the grounds that it was misleading.

As with the similar lawsuit filed before the election by Dotson and Rebecca Morgan, of “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,” the suit claims, in effect, that Missouri voters were not clever enough to know what they voted for when they approved Amendment 5 by such a huge margin. Therefore, their votes shouldn’t count.

The earlier lawsuit was rejected on the grounds that even if the ballot language were too vague, there was not enough time before the election to change it. The prospect of arbitrarily and retroactively throwing out the expressed wishes of the voters would seem even more unlikely.

Dotson and Demanding Mom Rebecca Morgan are of course not alone in their abhorrence of Amendment 5. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board is similarly unhappy.

The proposal was put on the ballot by the same Republican-controlled Legislature that believes, in the absence of any evidence, that President Barack Obama is coming for your guns. They have tried (and failed) to nullify federal gun laws. Instead they messed with the state’s constitution (which was working just fine) purely so they could stand up at election time and talk about how pro-gun they are. Placing Amendment 5 on the ballot was nothing but dangerous political pandering.

Their most strenuous objection to Amendment 5 is the . . . interesting notion that it “arms felons”:

The current state of affairs seems to reinforce Mr. Dotson’s position that the amendment’s wording was misleading. It surely didn’t tell voters that they’d be handing guns to felons, but that’s precisely what is happening right now.

Speaking of using wording that failed to give voters sufficient information (a charge that editorial board has made against the same ballot language in the past), the Post-Dispatch seems to be keeping a rather relevant portion of the actual text of Amendment 5 secret from readers:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as a result of mental disorder or mental infirmity.

One could of course argue that this portion of Amendment 5 would seem to be in direct contradiction of its purported purpose of declaring the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” (given that it provides explicit language permitting “aliening” the right under certain circumstances)–and indeed one has made precisely that contention. That, however, is clearly not the Post-Dispatch’s argument.

Dotson wants to use the power of government to overturn the overwhelmingly popular will of the people. That’s kinda dangerous with an armed populace.


Obama’s List of Most Disrespectful Insults to the Military

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Obama is a disrespectful liberal half wit.

I can not decide which on Obama hates more The Military or America.


A lot has been written lately about Barack Obama’s ‘latte salute’ to his Marine guards. There has also been a lot written about his disrespect for the military and for America in general ever since he illegally assumed the highest office in the land. (Don’t know if you’ve noticed but for the past couple of months, I refuse to recognize him as president and will use other terms to denote his ill-gotten position. Yes the office of President deserves respect, but Obama so disrespects the office himself that I refuse to show any respect to him or the office as long as he holds it.)

Reading through many of the ways Obama has insulted or disrespected the military reminded me of when Bill Clinton was president. Both Bill and Hillary constantly treated their military guards as nothing more than hired servants to be walked on. I know a former Marine who was assigned duty with the Clintons and with George W. Bush and he told me the Clinton’s were very rude, harsh and unfriendly to him and his fellow Marines. He said they treated all military people with obvious disdain. If you remember, it was Clinton that started closing a number of military bases in the US, including one in my home area of Arizona that drastically hurt the local economy.

On the flip side, both George W. and First Lady Laura always treated them with the utmost respect. They both often talked with him and his fellow Marines and let them know how grateful they were for their service and protection. My friend told me that he would have taken a bullet without any hesitation for either of the Bushes but would have tripped or stepped aside when it came to the Clintons.


From what I read and hear, it seems that this is a basic difference between Democratic and Republican presidents and Obama is no different. If you need proof of Obama’s disrespect for the military that goes beyond his recent latte salute, here is a list of the top 30 most disrespectful insults Obama has made to the military, as compiled by Robert Moon of

“30) Looking past all his civilian aides to order a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head like a butler for an entire speech at the Rose Garden, in violation of military regulations.
29) Forcing race-baiting class warfare propaganda, extreme PC “sensitivity” measures, and Gay Pride Month on soldiers.
28) Taking credit for the success of the surge he opposed in Iraq.
27) Taking credit for the success of the interrogation policies he opposed that located Osama bin Laden.
26) Skipping the funeral of the highest-ranking officer to be killed on foreign soil in over 40 years (Major-General Harold J. Greene), to play golf.
25) Smearing veterans as potential domestic terrorists.
24) Trying to make wounded veterans cover their own medical treatment through private health insurance plans, which would inevitably end up increasing their out-of-pocket costs.
23) Blaming our troops for the Taliban attacking themfor everything from objecting to pedophilia and advocating women’s rights, to not wearing latex gloves while handling Korans and walking in front of Muslims while they are praying.
22) Rushing in to misrepresent the Ft. Hood massacre that killed 13 soldiers (one whom was pregnant) as mere “workplace violence.”
21) Giving captured terrorists at Gitmo (who are drenched in soldiers’ blood) a $750,000 soccer field, cable TV, entertainment, classes in painting, etc., while stripping away benefits for soldiers at every turn.
20) Ordering federal agencies to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible for the American people, which ended up cutting tuition assistance for soldiers and increasing other college costs for the Armed Forces across the board.
19) Denying veterans from all over the country access to the WWII Memorial in Washington over a staged government shutdown while allowing illegal immigrants to hold a political rally on closed federal grounds.
18) Cutting military health care benefits and pensions while increasing spending on unionized federal bureaucrats (Obama voters).
17) Ignoring a former Marine frivolously imprisoned in Mexico on trumped up weapons charges.
16) Using soldiers to help a terror-sponsoring dictator fight off outraged civilian protesters.
15) Purging the military of oath-keeping constitutionalists.
14) Imposing draconian cuts to the things we are actually supposed to be spending tax dollars on under the Constitution (like the military), while exploding spending on things the Federal Government has no authority to even be involved in, like Obama’s trillion-dollar health care takeover.
13) Silencing and criminalizing Christianity in the military.
12) Banning time-proven interrogation techniques and insisting on treating foreign terrorists as mere common criminals to be tried in American courts, as civilians.
11) Suppressing military votes.
10) Imposing ludicrous rules of engagement on our troops that have needlessly gotten many soldiers killed.
9) Appeasing our enemies, backing down after drawing “red lines” in the sand, betraying our allies, and dismantling our missile defensesall of which needlessly endangers our troops.
8) Cutting troops down to pre-WWII levels, and then allowing illegal immigrants into the military.
7) Allowing veterans to die on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals all over the country, after being warned about the manipulated numbers and obscene delays in care (welcome to ‘universal health care’) back in 2008.
6) Abandoning three decorated veterans and a U.S. ambassador to be dragged through the streets and tortured to death by bloodthirsty Islamic savages in Benghazi, and then falsely blaming it on Americans having the right to disagree with Islam in public.
5) Releasing numerous terrorists back onto the streets so they could return and attack our soldiers, including one who ended up becoming the leader of ISIS.
4) Releasing five major terrorist leaders to appease the Taliban into releasing one America-hating deserter.
3) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq while handing Afghanistan back to the Islamic fundamentalists who facilitated 9/11 (the Taliban).
2) Openly funding and arming Islamic terrorists.
1) Endlessly trampling the Constitution that soldiers are sworn to defend and attacking the rights they fight, bleed, and die to protect.”

Thank you Robert Moon for compiling this list for us. When read through this list, it’s obvious that Barack Obama has no business to be Commander-in-Chief of our military. He should be charged with dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders (US Constitution and Congress) and treason (as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution). If not shot for his crimes against the military, nation and American people, Barack Obama should be imprisoned, the key thrown away and door welded shut!

Illinois school handout teaches Second Amendment requires gun registration


This is from

Their is zero doubt in my mind common core is at the root of this Constitution rewrite.


School handout says Second Amendment requires gun registration.

According to a workbook handed out to seventh grade students at Grant Middle School in Springfield, Ill., theSecond Amendment only allows people to own “certain” guns if they have been registered, Infowars reported Friday. The parent who discovered the material confirmed to the handout’s existence and said the school is being “bombarded with messages” about the material.

“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison,” the handout says.

The Second Amendment, however, says nothing about registration nor prison, and simply states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The parent, who wished to remain anonymous for the sake of his son, posted a picture of the handout on the “Illinois Gun Owners Rights” Facebook page.

Initially, some thought the handout was related to Common Core, but the parent said in another Facebook comment he was told the workbook was created by two former Grant teachers before Common Core was implemented. The workbook, he explained, was intended for use only at that school.

He also said the reference to registration was intended to illustrate how some states regulate firearms.

“I explained those are state laws and have nothing to do with the Constitution,” the parent added.

He also said that after a half-hour discussion, his son’s teacher and the head of the history department agreed the workbook needs to be changed.

“I even told the school officials I talked to that you can’t reword the Constitution to what you think it should be, and you should only teach what it is,” the parent said, according to Infowars. “We live in a society where children are being taught to fear firearms instead of embracing them and our shooting sports. Heck, 50-60 years ago you had police officers coming into schools teaching firearm safety, and now we have schools teaching false information and fear. It’s a sad time.”

The picture has since gone viral on the Internet, and is spreading all over Facebook.

Although not related to Common Core, the lesson illustrates what many young people are being taught in public schools.

As we reported last October, an Arkansas parent was surprised to learn her daughter was given a team assignment to revise the Bill of Rights, pruning two amendments from the Constitution while adding two others. The assignment assumed the government had declared the Bill of Rights “is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”

Another Common Core lesson teaches a messianic view of Barack Obama, while yet another claims white voters rejected Obama due to his race.

Multiple calls to the school went unanswered.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: