Suspect Dead, 9 in Hospital After Ohio State Car-and-Knife Attack

1 Comment

H/T NBC News.

The attacker is the Ohio State case was a Somali refugee and no doubt a follower of the Pedophile Mohammed.

It is time to ban military style assault cars. 

The motive was unknown, but officials said the attack was clearly deliberate and may have been planned in advance.

Source: Suspect Dead, 9 in Hospital After Ohio State Car-and-Knife Attack – NBC News


Remember Bowe Bergdahl?

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

If Bowie the Deserting Traitor is charged with desertion why not seek the death penalty?

He did desert in while facing the enemy a feat that I understand does carry the death penalty.


Eight months after the Smartest President Ever traded America’s favorite deserter for five terrorists from Gitmo, Bowe Bergdahl is finally facing the music.

Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News:

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will be charged with desertion, a senior defense officials tell NBC News. The officials say the charges could be referred within a week…

While a court martial could lead to imprisonment, defense and military officials tell NBC News it is likely Bergdahl would be given consideration for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be permitted to leave the Army with a “less than honorable discharge.” If accepted, Bergdahl would be denied as much as $300 thousand in back pay and bonuses, and reduced in rank to at least Private First Class, the rank he held when he disappeared from his outpost in Afghanistan.

So they plan to let him off light.

The Army launched its investigation last October. Why are we only finding out about this now? Washington Free Beacon:

Three months later, the White House is stonewalling the Army’s charges on Bergdahl of desertion. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, has been a liaison between the Pentagon and the White House and has led the effort to keep this news from getting out.

Sen. Landrieu’s bombshell slam on the South: Calls southern voters racist and sexist days before election


This is from BizPac Review.

If the people of Louisiana reelect Mary Landrieu  they are dumber than could be imagined.



Democrats are grasping at straws to maintain power.

With her poll numbers falling by the day and her senate seat slipping away La. Sen. Mary Landrieu pulled out the liberal standbys, the race and gender cards.

In an interview with NBC News Landrieu said the reason for her and President Obama’s low approval ratings is due to the South being sexist and racist.


“I’ll be very, very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans,” Landrieu told NBC News. “It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leaderIt’’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves. It’s more of a conservative place.”

The remarks drew the ire of La. Gov. Bobby Jindal who issued a statement.

“She appears to be living in a different century,” he said. “Implied in her comments is the clear suggestion that President Obama and his policies are unpopular in Louisiana because of his ethnicity. That is a major insult by Senator Landrieu to the people of Louisiana and I flatly reject it.”

The Twitterverse had their say as well.


Mary Landrieu says her own constituents are racist…. now if you’re trying to win re-election… why would you insult your constituents?

New Poll Shows Just How Much November’s Mid-Terms Could Shake Things Up

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

I hope many DemocRats lose their jobs on November 4,2014.


A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey had some stunning results and they certainly will have a huge impact in next month’s elections.

Some of the results:

  • 52% of likely voters said they wanted the election to produce a Republican-led Congress.
  • 41% wanted a Democrat-led one.
  • This 11-point lead from this week was up from 5 points last week.
  • Among registered voters, a larger group than likely voters, there was a 46% to 42% lead for the Republicans, a 100% increase from the week before.
  • 57% disapprove of the President’s handling of ISIS, with 87% saying it was not aggressive enough.

The current polling for next month’s elections show a pretty close race for the Senate, with each party safe with 45 seats and 10 states considered toss-ups:

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

The House will remain in Republican hands with the only question being if they will pick up more seats:

House Race 2014

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

As far as governorships, it looks like Republicans will also advance here, with the only question being the size of the gain:

Governor's Race 2014

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

The countdown is now measured in weeks and days, and it will be incredibly interesting to see what happens.

If this poll is any indicator, it is likely to be a midterm election of historic levels. And one that makes a very clear statement by voters in which direction they’d like the country to be heading.

From His Cold Dead Hands: When Should Grandpa Give Up His Guns?


This is from from NBC News.

I personally see this as a backdoor attempt at gun control.

Do you see an age limit mentioned in the following, 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.


Many Baby Boomers already dread “the talk” –- suggesting their aging parents surrender car keys –- but now two geriatric experts say another thorny, family question must be asked of some elderly folks.

Is it time to give up your gun?

In a recently published paper, the two physicians offer a five-point checklist meant to help caregivers assess whether firearms remain safe in the hands and homes of older Americans, particularly if the gun owners are exhibiting unclear thinking or depression.

“Just like with some (older) people, it’s not if you should stop driving, but when,” said Dr. Ellen M. Pinholt, a co-author and former chief of geriatric medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. “If we find some dementia present in a patient, it can be about when to lock up the weapon or whether we have the family take it away.

“But nothing else has really been out there to help families to begin that conversation,” added Pinholt, a retired Army colonel who practices medicine in Rapid City, South Dakota. Her recommendations were informed by past home-health visits, including: one grandparent who kept a loaded handgun under a bed, a 97-year-old woman who didn’t know how to unload her weapon, and an older firearm owner who appeared confused.

The paper, published June 4 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, lists “5 Ls” to ask an older gun owner: Is his or her gun “loaded” and “locked;” do “little” children visit the home; is the owner feeling “low,” and is he or she “learned” about proper use?

Pinholt, a firearm owner, said she and her co-author, a retired Army Ranger, “are not against guns,” and simply are seeking to reduce suicide risk and boost safety for visitors –- including home-health professionals. Some gun-rights advocates assert, however, the paper’s focus on the elderly is another attempt to try to chip away constitutional freedoms.

“The ‘5 ‘L’s’ suggest that senior citizens must automatically be considered safety risks if they are firearms owners –- a notion we find rather insulting if not preposterous,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Washington.

“Should we prevent people from serving in public office into their 70s or 80s? Decisions they make could affect millions of citizens,” Gottlieb added. “Simply because someone is older does not mean they should begin to lose their firearms rights One doesn’t lose his or her civil rights merely because we turn the page of a calendar.”

Warren Johnson, 65, holding his Smith and Wesson M&P .40 pistol, talks about the issue of whether there should be a standard assessment that lets families or care givers determine whether older Americans should continue owning firearms.

About three hours north of New York City, former paramedic and gun owner Warren Johnson, 65, said he would become instantly leery should any medical professional delve into a line of questioning regarding firearms.

“If I go to a doctor’s office and the first thing out of his mouth is: ‘So, do you own a gun?’ the first thing that goes through my mind is: He is being coerced (to ask that) by a government agency, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid,” Johnson said. “It’s none of his business.

“It’s a family matter. It doesn’t belong within the government context, and it doesn’t belong within the healthcare context,” he said.

In the green wilds near his home, Johnson enjoys the age-old process of loading and shooting his .45 flintlock rifle, which exudes a hot burst of orange when fired. Flintlocks were used by American soldiers during the Revolutionary War –- and Johnson espouses ownership rights as vintage as his favorite weapon.

In fact, his affection for black-powder rifles ultimately led him to research the birth and purpose of the Second Amendment, which states: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“Now, when you try to compare gun ownership to driving, gun ownership is a guaranteed constitutional right. And I don’t know of any (age) qualification statements in the Second Amendment,” Johnson said. “Driving is a privilege, whether you’re young or old.”

Older Americans are more likely to own firearms, according to aggregated Gallup surveys conducted between 2007 and 2012. Those polls found that 32 percent of people age 65 and above have guns.

In fact, a clear demographic dividing line exists on this issue. Among Americans who are 50 and above, two-thirds own firearms, Gallup pollsters found. Among Americans between the ages of 18 and 49, about half own guns.

Does age have a place in the broader national conversationon gun ownership?

“From a practical standpoint, sure. I don’t think that a 5 year old has the experience or wisdom to own a firearm,” Johnson said.

“On the other end of the life scale, do you think it would be worthy to deny a 67 year old the right to own and use a firearm against home invaders who are in their 30s?” Johnson asked. “A gun is probably the only tool available to the elderly that equalizes the danger a 30-year-old perpetrator represents to them.”

Bullied Students Sneak Thousands of Guns Into Schools

Leave a comment

This is from NBC News.

This study was done by the Obama Regime’s Center for Disease Control.

This study is being touted by NBC News.

You can draw your own conclusions.


 Bullying victims are sneaking hundreds of thousands of firearms, knives and clubs into U.S. high schools, according to a chilling new analysis that carries the eerie echoes of one recent mass school assault and two potential near misses.

Extrapolating from a survey of American high school students by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that bullied students who are threatened or injured by a weapon on school property were eight times more likely to then choose, themselves, to carry a weapon to campus.

More alarming: Bullying episodes have a cumulative effect, vastly boosting the likelihood that a chronically harassed student will choose to pack a weapon before returning to a high school, the study found.

Specifically, bullied students who have endured four types of aggressive clashes at school — being verbally tormented, sustaining a physical assault, suffering personal property theft or damage, and cutting school due to safety concerns — are nearly 49 times more likely to have recently carried a weapon to school and 34 times more likely to have carried a gun within the past 30 days, the study found.

“When you combine all of those risk factors, you see scary figures,” said the lead author, Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Steven & Alexandra Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York.

“The CDC gave us the dots — we connected them. The data is staggering,” Adesman added during a phone interview. He will present the findings Sunday to a meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Vancouver, B.C.

By examining the responses of high school students in a biannual, national survey conducted by the CDC, the researchers estimated that more than 200,000 victims of bullies had secretly lugged weapons such as firearms, knives or clubs into their high schools at least once during a previous month.

“Looking at these risk factors, it’s not hard to know who’s most likely to carry a weapon to school,” Adesman said. He added that some victims of bullies also are bullies themselves, “so it’s not always black and white.”

Bullying is often discussed after mass shootings, even if evidence has been generally mixed. The Columbine shooters, for example, bragged about bullying students themselves. But previous studies have found bullying to be a factor in many school shootings.

The fresh findings are certainly consistent with three 2014 incidents during which students who were reportedly bullied later toted weapons to their schools — and one of those students allegedly inflicted mass injuries.

Alex Hribal, 16, is accused of a stabbing spree at a school near Pittsburgh that left 20 students and a security guard wounded. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that Hribal had received an online taunt the night before.

Two weeks later, a 9-year-old boy brought a handgun to Ellis Elementary School in Manassas, Va., and did so, police said, because he was being bullied.

Earlier this year, police in San Diego, hunting for truants, stopped a 15-year-old freshman at Serra High School who was carrying a gun in his backpack and who was en route to that school.

“He obtained the gun (earlier that morning) from where he was living. He hid it in a canyon on his way to school,” said Lt. Kevin Mayer, a spokesman for the San Diego Police Department. “He went to Serra High School where he was being bullied, and he got bullied again that day. He ditched a period. He went and retrieved the gun.”

The new findings from Adesman don’t surprise two top anti-bullying advocates, yet both agreed the figures should offer teachers, principals and even parents a more urgent understanding of where to find the seeds of eventual mass school shootings.

“The extent to which a youngster has a weapon with them at school, you create a feeling of a bit more bravado on their part,” said Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center, based near Los Angeles. “When you combine the weapon’s availability with the intimidation, some type of confrontation could escalate significantly.

“And when you look at many of the school shootings, they start with the small things,” Stephens added. “It could be name-calling, cursing, yelling, hard looks, and then you’re just moving right up the violence-continuum scale.”

This study “may move us further along” in the work now underway at many schools to curb bullying while placing extra responsibility on administrators, Stephens said, “because once school officials know there is bullying going on, it goes back to: What did you know, when did you know about it, what did you do about it?”

One method for school professionals to intervene well before a weapon is placed inside a backpack is to try to break the code of silence that exists among many students, said Donna Clark Love, a Houston-based anti-bullying advocate who works with school staffs and families.

“A common thread of these students who bring weapons to school is to tell someone — usually peers,” Clark Love said. “We have to give our kids permission and support to report what they hear when a peer is in trouble.

“We have to train our bystanders to become up-standers. Schools spend so much time focusing on the bullies, and yet so little time and effort in training the largest part of the student body, the bystanders,” she added. “If victims felt supported, protected, and heard by at least one of their peers, would they need to bring a weapon to school?”

MSNBC Has Full Deck of Race Cards

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

PMSNBC sees a racist under every bed and behind every tree.

Now we know why not even the Hubble telescope can’t find

the ratings for PMSNBC.

“Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?”

So asks Joy-Ann Reid, the managing editor of The Grio, a web magazine owned by NBC News whose mission is to “focus on news and events that have a unique interest and/or pronounced impact within the national African Americans audience.” The “they” in question are conservatives and journalists asking, among other things, why President Obama hasn’t inserted himself into this case the way he did in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

The irony-impaired Reid was asking that question about a heinous murder in Oklahoma, where, according to police, an Australian student was shot by a black youth with the help of two friends (one of whom was white) “for the fun of it.” Police allege that the bored teens spotted Christopher Lane jogging and decided to follow him and shoot him in the back.

Reid asked the question while guest-hosting a show on MSNBC, a network that has mastered the art of making unracial things racial. Just two days earlier, Reid had insisted that there’s a “neoconfederate thread” running through the gun-rights movement. Whatever that means.

Then there’s MSNBC fixture Chris Matthews, who insists, with considerable regularity, that any criticism of Barack Obama is driven by “white supremacy.” Critics of Obamacare, Matthews claims, believe that “the white race must rule.”

Another MSNBC host, Martin Bashir, recently insisted that outrage over the ongoing scandal at the IRS is really nothing more than coded racism. The IRS is the new “n-word” according to Bashir. “So this afternoon, we welcomed the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this president: the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent but we know what you mean.”

Lawrence O’Donnell, another MSNBC host, assured viewers during the Republican National Convention last summer that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell‘s joke about Obama playing too much golf was really a deliberate racist dog whistle. “These people,” O’Donnell insisted, “reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches.”

And that of course leaves out Al Sharpton, an MSNBC host who can best be understood as the racial equivalent of an ambulance chaser.

Against this backdrop, Reid asking why anyone would bring race into the discussion is a bit like a pornographer asking, “Why make this about sex?”

But let’s get back to her question. One high-minded response might be that conservatives are bringing race into this discussion because they are simply doing what has been asked of them by Reid and countless others, including the president and the attorney general: They’re trying to have that coveted “national conversation about race.” Of course, the conversation that the conversation-mongers want is entirely one-sided; they only want to talk about why their ideological enemies are racists. Any other discussion is an incomprehensible and unjustifiable tangent distracting us from what they want to hear and say.

But the truth is, that’s not what is going on. To the extent that people are bringing up race it is to turn the tables, rhetorically at least, on people like Reid and her MSNBC colleagues for their relentless — some might say shameless and disgusting — effort to exploit the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Recall that there was no evidence Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus, a fact so inconvenient to NBC News that it unethically edited Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound like he was racist. (NBC later apologized and Zimmerman is rightly suing.) This inconvenient truth was also why numerous news outlets insisted on describing Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” — to bend the facts to fit the preferred narrative.

Australian and British newspapers — which do not care about imposing a monolithic liberal narrative on race — are reporting that Lane’s alleged murderers may have been driven by motives other than boredom. But even if the initial reporting proves accurate and these thugs were just trying to break the monotony of the dog days of summer, the lesson for the MSNBC crowd should be the same.

From Obama down to his cheerleaders in the press, liberals have declared unremitting war on their ideological opponents, cynically polarizing the country along racial — and, when possible, gender — lines. They, not conservatives, have been the ones dragging race into any and every political dispute they can. This disgusting strategy has worked well for them, galvanizing minority voters and tarring the Republican brand. I don’t particularly welcome the fact that conservatives are fighting fire with fire, but you can hardly blame them given how liberals like Reid have been asking for it for so long.


1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Journalism.

I hope George is able to collect millions.

The despicable fraud NBC perpetrated needs to be punished.

NBC can no longer claim they are non bias if they ever were.  


If you look at this timeline that lists the objectively terrible media behavior in the early days of the Zimmerman case last year, you will see how crucial NBC’s fraudulent editing of a 911 call was in setting a media and political narrative that falsely claimed George Zimmerman is racist.

This malicious edit made it look as though Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin as black, when he was simply answering a dispatcher’s question:

On the storied “Today Show,” NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Once NBC’s fraud was publicly debunked, George Zimmerman filed suit against the network. After his acquittal last week, Zimmerman’s attorneys said they will now turn their energies towards NBC.

Tuesday night, on Fox News, two legal experts appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and agreed that NBC is in hot water and likely to lose millions:

Lis Wiehl, a Fox News analyst, said, “That’s absolutely not enough. NBC is on the hook here for a big defamation, intentional infliction with emotional stress lawsuit here. They doctored that tape. It went out there. It started the whole narrative of Zimmerman being this hardened racist, this profiling racist that started everything.”

Fellow Fox Newser Kimberly Guilfoyle remarked that the case will pivot on whether Zimmerman is considered a public or private figure; the burden of proof in a defamation case is far less demanding for private figures under U.S. law. Though Zimmerman is now a public figure, he was a private figure when this whole episode went down, Wiehl noted.

The report above is from Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple, who agrees that it will cost NBC “big bucks” to make this go away.

My hope, and I say this without any rancor, is that Zimmerman refuses to settle and that the trial is televised live.

Nothing could be better for the country and the media than to pour sunshine on how and why this happened.


Chevy Volt Heads for Fiery Crash

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall Finance.

The Chevy Volt is the Pinto of the 21st.century.

Another greenies wet dream that is a failure.

G.M has a cash cow known as the Federal government.


The good news for GM these days is that no one has been consumed in a fiery death due to engine compartment fires since the Chevy Volt was discovered to spontaneous combust after accidents shortly after production began.

The bad news for the company is that while Chevy Volt sales in June set a record, prior to June their sales for 2013 sucked despite general auto sales setting post-crash records.

“With signs that sales of its Chevrolet Volt battery car could be coming unplugged,” reported NBC News in June, “General Motors is offering potential buyers as much as $5,000 in incentives – making it the latest maker to try to cut prices in a bid to boost lagging demand for electric vehicles.”

In June the company reported 2,698 Volts sold thanks to those drastic discounts by GM. In fact, all battery-powered cars have seen deep price cuts due to disappointing sales.

“For the first five months of this year,” said NBC News, “GM has sold only 7,157 of what it prefers to call an extended-range electric vehicle, or E-REV. May sales, in particular, fell 4.3 percent, to 1,607. By comparison, the overall U.S. automotive market was up 8.2 percent for the month. According to a report by Inside EVs, Chevy dealers have more than 9,000 Volts clogging inventories, vehicles they need to clear out before the 2014 models start rolling in.”

That makes 6,302 excess Volts just weeks before the 2014 models are supposed to come off the assembly line. Or, to calculate another way, that’s 2 1/3 months of inventory assuming all the suckers haven’t already purchased Volts in the new and reduced “free” lunch program run by General Motors.

The ridiculous list price for the Volt started out at $46,000. Since then it’s been lowered to $39,995. The price is still ridiculous because the Volt is basically the Chevy Cruze with a big battery.

The Cruze by contrast has an MSRP of between $17,000-$23,000.

To lull consumers, the federal government gives a credit to Volt buyers of $7,500, plus GM, starting in June, discounted the price by another $4,000-$5,000 depending on the model year.

That means a buyer can pay around $28,000 for the privilege of buying a car that goes 38 miles on a full battery charge and has all the amenities of car that costs $5k less even after Volt discounts, subsidies, giveaways.

Boosters of the car will bombard me with email bragging about the cost savings with the Chevy Volt because they never have to buy gasoline, but they too often overlook the true cost of an electric vehicle.

First, electricity is not a free power source, despite what liberals believe. Electricity doesn’t just magically come from a wall plug.

Volt owners are SHOCKED…SHOCKED… when employers, HOAs and others third parties object to being asked to pay $1.50 per day to fully charge the car’s battery at public electrical outlets. It’s a phenomenon that’s becoming more common.

‘‘This isn’t some evil electric car that consumes a ton of electricity. It’s just a drop in the pond compared to what the whole building pays,’’ Mike Nemat told CBC News when trying justify using his condo’s public power source to fuel his vehicle.

It maybe a drop in the pond, but the pond isn’t Nemat’s to take from.

$1.50 per day to charge a Volt battery times 365 days is $547.50 per year. If “everyone” did it at a 50 unit condo, that would be $27,375 per year for “free” electricity.

And despite what liberals think, someone still has to pay the bill.

“This is ridiculous. It’s approximately $1.50 per day (based on the average electricity price in the U.S.) to fully charge a Volt,” wrote reader Corey on the article about Nemat’s condo subsidies. “That’s less than the price of a cup of coffee. When taken into consideration that it’s split between several tenants… they should be proud that they’re not only helping to save the environment but also lowering the nation’s dependence on foreign oil for pennies out of their pockets.”

I’m sure they are proud. But they just aren’t $27,375 proud. Or $7,500 worth of federal tax subsidies proud.

Nor am I. I’m “I’d rather you not take my tax money or HOA dues” proud. Do what you like, buy what you want, but don’t ask me to pay for it.

If Volt owners were really proud they’d pay for the “drop in the pond” themselves.

In finding out the true cost of ownership, the Volt’s battery should be depreciated across the life of the battery as well.

The battery costs about $8,000 to replace and lasts- in principle- about eight years. According to the Volt costs a 7 cents a mile to operate on all-electric (EV) versus all-gasoline power of about 11 cents per mile. But those calculations ignore the battery costs, which add another 10 cents per mile to the electric option for a total of 17 cents per mile.

And that’s what’s really driving the poor sales of the Volt. Battery costs jack up the price of the Volt- and EV’s- versus gasoline vehicles. Chevy made a strategic mistake when it attempted to put the Volt’s costly powertrain into Chevy’s discount model- the Cruze. Instead GM should have followed competitor Tesla’s strategy of making an EV that appeals to rich, privileged, metro-sexual types plagued by White Guilt, which often also comes out sideways as Carbon Envy.

There’s money to be made on folks like that.

Just don’t use my money in doing it.

Because the scheme will likely end in a fiery crash, which, for the Volt, would be fitting since that’s how it started.



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: