How gullible can the poor be in this country thinking that the liberals really care about their lot in life? A biased media supporting a President who shows so little concern for lifting people out of poverty.

I think Laura Ingraham stated the case for a change in the direction of this country quite well with one of her latest blogs...

April 9, 2013

Obama's America: poverty skyrockets, yet press yawns Posted by Laura

During the Reagan years, the media accused conservatives of not caring for the poor, lacking compassion for the less fortunate.  Fast forward 3+ decades as the ranks of the poor balloon under Obama's leadership, as joblessness ravages the young and minority communities hardest. The blame is never squarely placed on his shoulders.  It is always someone else's fault--Boehner, McConnell, or Fox News. This is an appalling lack of accountability for a man whose idea of sacrifice is a 5 percent pay cut as he spends millions to golf with Tiger Woods.  And we the people are paying dearly.

04/9/13 5:43 AM

We will NOT allow Benghazi to be forgotten until all questions are answered...and YES Hillary, it does matter!

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

EndTheCoverUp.com: 700 Special Ops vets call on Congress to establish special select committee on Benghazi

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 8, 2013 09:59 AM

Via the Center for Security Policy, 700 Special Ops veterans sent a letter to Congress today calling on Congress to establish a select committee to investigate the Benghazi cover-up. “The SOF 700 letter was organized at the initiative of Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin USA (Ret.) by Special Operations Speaks (SOS),” Frank Gaffney writes. “This not-for-profit organization was established by special operation veterans in 2012 to illuminate the failed operational security environment of the Obama Administration and to restore accountability in government. These veterans have put their lives on the line for our country. The signers are determined to ensure than no one else needlessly loses theirs by establishing – and learning from – the lessons of the Benghazigate scandal.”

More info:

Months after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, the American people are still waiting to hear the truth about why this happened. After all this time, critical questions still remain unanswered about: the policies that may have contributed to this debacle; the motives of the attackers; President Obama’s whereabouts after he learned our facilities in Benghazi were taking fire; the failure to mount any rescue attempt; and even the status of survivors; to name just a few.

On April 8, 2013, seven hundred former special operations warriors ­many of whom were heroically involved in “preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans²” wrote an open letter to the House of Representatives. They said, in part:

“This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.”

To be sure, several congressional committees have tried to investigate separate aspects of the attack and the Obama administration’s handling of it after the fact. But, with each committee having different jurisdictions, their inquiries so far have been piecemeal and incomplete. The American people still do not have a definitive accounting of what went wrong.

What can be done?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) has introduced a congressional resolution, H. Res. 36, calling for the establishment of a special Congressional committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration’s handling of it in the weeks that followed. It’s an opportunity for a comprehensive investigation that connects all the dots, and holds people accountable.

You can join the petition movement here:   End the Cover Up NOW! 

Make your voice heard and keep the memory of the fallen Americans in Benghazi alive.

Like Obama said, we like to cling to our guns and our God...so when the revolution arrives, and it will arrive, we will prevail against these anti-Christian, anti-American liberal cowards

U.S. Government: Evangelicals, Catholics & Ultra-Orthodox Jews Are Serious Threats to National Security

Written on Monday, April 8, 2013 by Candice Lanier

Ron Trowbridge, undersheriff of Prowers County Colorado, attended a training session in La Junta, Colorado which was hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The training was on sovereign citizens and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, but also on the agenda was the subject of Christians who believe the U.S. was founded on Godly principles and who interpret the Bible literally. This describes many in the sovereign citizen movement but it is also indicative of many mainstream right-of-center Americans.

Trooper Joe Kluczynski, who conducted the training, said he got his training materials from the DHS. Many will recall back in 2011, the DHS released the controversial publications, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon” and “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices.” Both documents provided the impetus for the type of training tools government agencies across the country are using.

Todd Starnes, writing for Fox News, reports that during a U.S. Army training event, an Army instructor cited Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism—along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.

Not only was it implied that Evangelical Christianity is as dangerous as a terrorist organization, but it was at the top of the list of threats. And, here is that list:

Evangelical Christianity
Muslim Brotherhood
Ultra-Orthodox Jews
Christian Identity
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Abu Sayyam
Ku Klux Klan
Sri Ram Sene
Catholicism
Kamane Movement / Kach
Army of God
Sunni Muslims
Nation of Islam
Jewish Defense League
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Hutaree

“Islamophobia” was also listed as a form of religious extremism.”
“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”

Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that the presentation of the extremist threats list was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.” Wright said that the, “slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine.” He added that, “it was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”


But, the incident was made public by a soldier who had attended the briefing. He requested copies of the presentation which he subsequently sent to the Chaplain Alliance. “He considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews explained to Fox News. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

The Archdiocese for the Military Services was stunned upon learning that the Army considers Catholicism to be an example of extremism: “The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.”


Wright had the opportunity to speak with the officer who did the presentation and she told him that she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). To this Crews responded with: “Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups.” He added that, “it appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”


According to Mark Potok, Senior Fellow & Editor-in-Chief at the SPLC, the SPLC has never labeled Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism as extremist groups. But, they have labeled a number of conservative Christian organizations as “hate groups” due to the organizations’ stance on homosexuality.

A handful of domestic Muslim hate groups, such as the As-Sabiqun movement were not tallied by the SPLC, even though disapproval of homosexuals is prevalent among Muslims. Jonathan Brown, an Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, writing for Patheos reports that while a group of liberal Muslims in the West argue that homosexuality is in fact allowed in Sharia law, almost all traditional Muslim scholars reject this argument. But, the SPLC chose to zero in on Christians instead of Muslims.


The SPLC does have a ‘General Hate’ category into which people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are placed. Accusing Spencer and Geller of ‘anti-Muslim’ sentiment would be inaccurate because much of the material produced by the two is in defense of Muslims (i.e. women and children) who are oppressed by other Muslims. In as much as the SPLC claims to be monitoring hate, there are no ‘Muslim Fundamentalist’, ‘Jihadist’, or ‘Anti-Christian’ hate groups listed.


Both the SPLC & federal government agencies such as the DHS and FBI harbor an interest bordering on obsession with Christians and “right wing extremists” while ignoring the following findings from a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report titled “Terrorist Arrests and Plots Stopped in the United States 2009-2012″:
Ninety-eight terror suspects/defendants from the 2009-2012 time period revealed 17 who were not Muslim and not connected to Islamic terror plots.


Nearly 83% of the terror suspects involved in U.S. terror plots from 2009-2012 were Muslim.

A report issued by the Department of Justice in 2011 relating to “National Security Division Statistics on Unsealed International Terrorism and Terrorism – Related Convictions 9/11/01 – 3/ 18/10″ identified, after analysis, more than 80% of all such convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism involved defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.


The Senate Intelligence Committee report, that overlaps by 2009 and early 2010 with the noted DOJ statistical conviction report, clearly validates and continues the 80+% finding related to the post-9/11 case conviction analysis.

These reports confirm that while the vast majority of Muslims in America are not terrorists, the clear and significant majority of terrorist plots and cases identified within the United States involve radicalize Muslims.

(Via The Investigative Project on Terrorism)
To be sure, government agencies need to be vigilant in regard to all terrorist threats. But, as is the case with the politically motivated SPLC, the DHS and FBI appears to be not as focused on the groups representing 83% of domestic terrorist plots as they are on groups far less likely to present a threat. In both the case of the law enforcement training in Colorado and the Army training, uneasiness with viewpoints deemed to be outside of the mainstream was evident. Entire groups of people are being singled out for having ideologies that some find offensive. It would behoove those offended to read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/u-s-government-evangelicals-catholics-ultra-orthodox-jews-are-serious-threats-to-national-security/#ixzz2PvahyDkv

Why do young people blindly support (and sometimes even worship) Obama and his liberal, socialist policies? Do they like living in their parent's basements?

 

RS FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The American workforce collapses on top of the young

By: John Hayward  |  April 5th, 2013 at 02:02 PM

Here’s a simple media analysis tool for you: if you hear a “news report” describing the March unemployment report as good news in any way, you are listening to a propaganda operation, a political organ of the Democrat Party, not a “news organization.”  Make a note, and treat all further “news” from this source with great suspicion, at least until you receive word of large-scale staff turnovers.

There is absolutely nothing to celebrate about a month in which a mere 88,000 jobs were created – far below the level needed to keep pace with population growth, and even farther below the “expert” projections of 200,000 new jobs.  Not after long years of merciless unemployment and anemic GDP growth, with numerous world crises and the job-smashing avalanche of ObamaCare on the horizon.  This economy is nowhere near strong enough to face the challenges that are coming, and there really aren’t any good surprises to hope for.

At the same time job creation went off a cliff, an astounding 496,000 people departed the workforce entirely.  Workforce contraction is one of the big under-reported stories of the Obama era.  Just about every monthly “reduction” in the official unemployment number has been “achieved” due to people giving up and ceasing their search for work, which takes them out of the equation.  And this situation is not improving.  The official unemployment rate just “dipped” to 7.6 percent, but if we still had the same size workforce that existed just one year ago, it would be 8.3 percent.  Barack Obama has given the America of 2013 the workforce of 1979.  Forward!

Obama apologists love to mumble about “demographics” when forced to confront the workforce collapse.  It would seem reasonable to suppose that some of the people exiting the job market are retirees.  The Baby Boom is reaching its golden years, a demographic tsunami that will soon annihilate the social programs we’ve been told not to think too carefully about.  As they get older, they stop working.

But demographic shifts are not nearly enough to explain the timing or magnitude of the workforce decline.  If they were, we would expect to see a low unemployment rate among young people, drafted into companies to replace the retiring cohort.  In a healthy economy, large numbers of jobs would not vanish from attrition when a senior employee retires, particularly given that retirees remain consumers.  The money they spend throughout their retirement should be creating job demand.  Obama is a great believer in the consumer-driven economy, isn’t he?

Instead, we’ve got crushing unemployment among the young.  The overall unemployment rate for ages 18-29 is 11.7 percent, rising to 12.6 percent for Hispanics, and 20.1 percent for African-Americans.  And they’ve been dropping completely out of the workforce in horrifying numbers, too.  Generation Opportunity, which studies employment trends among young people, says that “If the labor force participation rate were factored into the 18-29 youth unemployment calculation, the actual 18-29-unemployment rate would rise to 16.2 percent.”

And that’s not all.  Contrary to the “aging population equals workforce decline” spin, ZeroHedge says we actually have an “age-bifurcated jobs market” in which older workers are actually doing far better than young people:

Since the arrival of Obama, the US workforce has been effectively split into two separate job markets: those 54 and younger (condolences) and those 55 and older. Specifically, since January 2009, the number of jobs created has been focused solely on the gerontocratic component of the US labor pool, those aged 55 to 69 (or more - gray line below), and who can no longer afford to retire as expected thanks to Bernanke’s genocidal ZIRP policies which have made a mockery of savings.

These older workers have seen a grand total of 4.02 million cumulative jobs created. Everyone else (or those 54 and younger - red line below)? A grand total of 2.8 million jobs lost, and now deteriorating once more, with those in the prime work demographic of 25-54 having lost the most jobs, 2.2 million, since the coming of Obama.

Here’s the graph ZeroHedge refers to, which throws that age-bifurcated job market into stunning, sharp relief:

This is not a demographic shift moving older people out of the working population.  It’s a combination of older people who can’t afford to retire, plus employers desperate to retain experienced employees, even as they shed jobs to survive in Obama’s economy.  Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of labor is skyrocketing.  The law gives employers hard, cold reasons to reduce the number of full-time employees.  Why gamble on untested, inexperienced young people when you can hang on to senior staffers, who are nervous about retirement?

And remember, our huge student-loan bubble means a lot of younger people are delaying entry into the workforce, both when seeking first jobs and when attempting to build more serious careers.  High employment among twentysomethings mixes with that mountain of student-loan debt to tell a very sad story.

I also find myself wondering how the dissolution of the traditional family plays into the high unemployment among young people.  It might prove difficult to gather the data needed to prove it out, but I wonder how much kids are suffering from the absence of a father who can prevail on personal or business connections to help them find that first job, begin an apprenticeship, or begin a career.  Moms can do those things too, of course, but there’s no doubt that the single-parent family leaves kids with one less parent to open doors for them.  And those parents are often younger, and working less stable, shorter-term jobs.  The connections needed to give their children a hand into the job market are less common than they used to be.  A powerful, subtle network that once helped young people interface with the job market has gone offline.

A growing population should bring more opportunities.  Each new person is both a provider of labor, and a consumer of goods and services. All have needs, and all have something to offer in return.  It is profoundly disturbing to watch so many people slide off the grid, year after year, becoming dependents instead of participants.  And bringing them back into the workforce will not be easy – anyone who has suffered long-term unemployment can tell you how tough it can be to get back into the game, when your resume has gaps months or years wide.  When the job market does come back, experienced workers will have a great advantage over young people.

But it might not be coming back any time soon, because Barack Obama dragged America so far to the Left that the effective strategies for a true, healthy recovery – tax cuts, de-regulation, privatization, and above all the repeal of ObamaCare – are unthinkable.  The political class won’t even discuss the things we should be doing.  All we can do is wait for the next round of excuses from sweaty political hacks and their public-relations teams in the “news” room.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/05/the-american-workforce-collapses-on-top-of-the-young/

How much easier will it be for Obama's corrupt anti-American, Muslim-friendly regime to control the masses when the masses no longer have weapons?

This Vietnam veteran, Special Forces patriot knows from where he speaks. 

Read this article in its entirety and also go to the referenced links below.  Then ask yourself, "How plausible is the scenario described by Mr. Russell?"  If you stay "blind", do noting and go on with your life.  If you begin to question the motive of the ObamaNation, then pass the link to this blog post to other patriots, and finally, go to the Tea Party Website (http://www.teaparty.org ) and join the movement to defend our sovereignty and liberty against the tyranny that will too soon end up on all of our doorsteps.  Stay armed America!

http://www.teaparty.org/obama-wont-confiscate-guns-are-you-blind-22548/

Obama Won’t Confiscate Guns?? Are you Blind???

(Bob Russell/TeaParty.org) – Since Barack Obama has said he is going to send federal agents into Oklahoma and other states to enforce Obamacare, what is there to make me believe he won’t send federal agents in to enforce his gun registration/confiscation scheme?  If he “dictates” an executive order that I have to turn in or register any weapons and I refuse, who is going to enforce that dictate?  If Congress decrees that I cannot own particular types of weapons or magazines and I refuse to comply, who is going to enforce it?

In his E/O decree on Obamacare1[i] he essentially said the states have no right to oppose the federal government, that the federal government has the final say, PERIOD!!!, he is the ultimate authority of the land.  Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution say different!!!  Obama and his “Gangs of ??????” in Congress, both political parties,  see themselves as rulers rather than servants of We the People.

Back to: “Who is going to confiscate my weapons and any accessories they say I cannot have”?  Is Obama going to send his DHS Gestapo thugs to attack me and those of like mind?  Will he use the purse of the federal government to pay state police to invade my home, shoot me, and steal my private property?  Will the state team up with the local sheriff and/or police department to kick in my door in the middle of the night and shoot me in my bed like happened to a man a few days ago in Auburn, Washington? [ii]

Do I have to worry about the government kicking in my door because I exercise my rights as written in the Constitution?  Will I wake up in the middle of the night and find masked men in military garb at my door with automatic weapons, face masks, body armor head to toe, and an armored personnel carrier; all there with the intent to arrest me for violating a law that is clearly unConstitutional?

Some say I am paranoid, a fear monger, and a “radical right wing extremist”, for asking these questions.  I’m none of those things.  I am a patriot who believes in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the right to live by both as our founders intended.  I am a citizen who sees rampant abuse of the Constitution by those we elect to uphold and defend said Constitution.

We see incidents like these I list becoming the rule rather than the exception.  Police dressed head to toe in military garb, face hoods, and body armor are taking a “shoot first and ask questions later” attitude in everyday contacts with people.  In California SWAT teams, also dressed in military uniforms and equipment, are rounding up firearms from those who have been “deemed” to now possess firearms illegally.  No court hearings, no due process, just a kicked in door and shots fired if resisted.

And what about the [iii] 68 year old man shot over his medical alert bracelet being accidentally activated?  Need I go on?  There are literally pages of incidents where police and/or SWAT teams have needlessly shot citizens, many fatally.

During the Chris Dorner incident police riddled two different vehicles with bullets without bothering to find out who was in the vehicle before opening fire.  One vehicle contained a white man who was uninjured (Dorner was black).  The other vehicle contained two Hispanic women, one elderly, and both of whom were wounded.  In both cases they were in pickup trucks that were nowhere near the description given of the truck Dorner was reported to be driving.  It seemed that merely being in a truck at that time in California was enough to get one shot by police.  Why should I believe those with the same attitude won’t just shoot me out of convenience?

Those who call me paranoid or a fear monger see the same things I see, or do they?  What do the naysayers think about the Marine who was shot to death in a 2011 Gestapo style “drug” raid that found nothing illegal? 

They shot this veteran 60 times in his own home without so much as identifying themselves, and then let him lay there for over an hour while they ransacked the house to no avail.  If you naysayers will look at the link to this story you will find it is from the Huffington Post, hardly a “vast right wing conspiracy” publication.[iv]

How can people see what is going on every day and say it can’t/won’t happen here?  Why not?  How does one see DHS arming itself to the teeth without wondering why they need such armaments?  Who are they going to use this military hardware on?  At the same time, politicians at all levels and in both political parties are breaking their necks to disarm citizens.  If we are all defenseless why do they need armored vehicles and automatic weapons with billions of rounds of ammunition?  It is as if those in political office don’t believe in the vision of the founding fathers.

Those who say it won’t or can’t happen here are living in a dream world, one that will turn into a nightmare before their very eyes.  There were many who said it couldn’t happen in Germany, but it did.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews left Germany when they saw the steps Hitler was taking.  Some went to other European countries and were eventually rounded up when German forces conquered Europe.  Some came to the United States and contributed to the defeat of the Axis Powers.  Some came here to live normal working class lives and survived the Holocaust that killed 6 million of their people.

We hear stories from people who have experienced tyranny in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia yet many Americans thumb their nose at those who know from first-hand experience what life is like in totalitarian societies.  Those who deny what is obvious will suffer when the shoe of tyranny drops, and they will deserve what they get.  They won’t be the only ones to suffer, however.  An entire nation will lose the liberty won and preserved with the blood of millions of patriots.  It certainly won’t give me any pleasure to say “I told you so”, assuming I survive the initial attack.

Most of us don’t have a choice but to stay and fight for our future.  Some can move to countries that don’t have despots and wanna-be dictators running them but they won’t be safe there for long once America falls.  When we are gone as the “shining city on a hill” it won’t be long before the rest of the world is subjected to the same tyranny we saw in 1930’s Germany.

According to the Constitution I am part of the defensive militia of America.  If the government was following the Constitution they would be arming me and my neighbors instead of a DHS force that has no authority to operate inside the United States.  What is the point of disarming the citizens and arming a federal police force to the teeth with military style equipment?  What possible justification do they have for this?  Who do they plan to fight with all of this hardware? We are far gone from the vision of our founders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob Russell is a retired Vietnam era veteran who served with Special Forces. Bob is a senior writer on the Tea Party Research Team of TeaParty.org.

[i] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-election-administr
[ii] http://www.prisonplanet.com/justified-uniformed-invaders-shoot-a-man-16-times-in-his-bed.html

[iii] http://tightwind.net/2012/04/autopsy-suggests-man-shot-by-ny-police-did-not-threaten-them/

[iv] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

Gun restrictions are not the solution - responsible action by people in responsible positions would do far more to stop violence and mass killings than any gun control legislation enacted by low-information bureaucrats

Why cannot lilberals understand such basic common sense and logic?  Why do they resort to knee-jerk, feel good solutions that have been proven to be ineffective at reducing gun violence?  Is there something missing in the gray matter of liberals that prevent them from processing information correctly?  I'll will never understand the mind of a liberal.   

Psychiatrist warned campus police about Aurora shooter a month before mass murder

posted at 9:21 am on April 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In a revelation that may have Colorado voters rethinking their state’s push on gun control, court documents revealed that the mass shooting in Aurora that killed 12 and injured 70 more could have been prevented by law enforcement.  The psychiatrist for suspect, James Holmes, had warned campus police that Holmes was dangerous and homicidal a month before the shooting took place.  Lynne Fenton even told the police that Holmes had begun to stalk and threaten her, and yet no action was apparently taken.

A University of Colorado psychiatrist told campus police a month before the Aurora movie theater attack that James Holmes had homicidal thoughts and was a public danger, according to records unsealed Thursday.

Lynne Fenton, a psychiatrist at the Denver campus, told police that Holmes had also “threatened and harassed her via email/text messages” in June 2012. He is standing trial for the July 20 shooting rampage that killed 12 and injured 70 during a midnight premiere of the latest Batman movie. …

Soon after the shooting, university police said they had not had any contact with Holmes, a graduate student doing neuroscience research. But a search warrant affidavit released Thursday revealed that an officer had told investigators that Fenton had contacted her to report “his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made.”

In releasing the arrest and search warrant affidavits and other documents, District Judge Carlos Samour, the new judge overseeing the case, ruled that neither the prosecution nor defense had convinced him that making the files public would cause harm or that keeping them sealed would prevent harm.

The prosecution had tried to keep these records sealed, and it’s not difficult to see why.  (They can be viewed at KUSA’s website, where they were posted last night.) The narrative from political and law-enforcement leaders in Colorado has been that this could have been anyone with a gun who just flipped out, and a society without gun control cannot hope to stop it.  But Holmes didn’t just flip out shortly before the murder, and police had ample warning of the danger he presented.

Police have testified to having no contact with Holmes before the shooting.  Why exactly was that?  The complaint/warning from Fenton should have prompted police to make sure Holmes wasn’t a threat to Fenton, at the very least.  Had they performed that standard follow-up — and remember, this was a mental health professional telling the police that her patient was both homicidal and threatening her specifically — the police might well have had Holmes in custody long before the shooting.

Instead, this information has remained under seal while Colorado politicians insisted that it was the guns that created the unforeseen danger of mass murder.  The new release destroys that narrative, and poses another question. If police in Colorado can’t be bothered to follow up on information from a psychiatrist that her patient has become homicidal, dangerous to the community, and has threatened her specifically, why bother passing gun laws at all?

The question on everyone’s minds is “Why?”, as Manuel Bojorquez says at the end — but not just “why did Holmes commit this murder?” We also want to know why the police never bothered to even talk with Holmes after Fenton’s warning.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/05/psychiatrist-warned-campus-police-about-aurora-shooter-a-month-before-mass-murder/

More about DHS stockpiling of Ammo above and beyond what makes sense...from a very reputable, qualified source

Really now.  Something is up at DHS that just does not add up no matter who does the calculations (except of course for Big Sis Napolitano - our resident communist Secretary of the DHA).  Does the Obama regime really intend to shoot on civilians when our economy finally collapses, food shortages abound, our dollar is devalued, and we can no longer find work? 

About the Publisher

 

Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the US Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Action Committee.

Read more: http://joemiller.us/2013/04/dhs-finally-responds-to-senate-demand-for-ammo-info-but-its-numbers-dont-pencil-out/#ixzz2PQL0R6zP

DHS Finally Responds to Senate Demand for Ammo Info but its Numbers Don’t Pencil Out

03 Apr 2013

by Joe Miller

Last fall, Senator Coburn sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding an explanation by the end of November for the agency’s reported purchase of massive quantities of ammunition. Yesterday, Dr. Coburn released correspondence that he finally received from DHS purporting to explain the purchases.

First, here’s what was disclosed by DHS: As of November 2012, it had over 263 million rounds of ammunition on hand. The agency said it was purchasing an additional $37 million of ammunition in this fiscal year, but did not give the actual number of rounds. Using the prior year’s cost per round of approximately 35 cents, it appears that DHS is adding another 105 million rounds on top of the 263 million on hand, minus rounds consumed in training and operations this fiscal year.

Using this 363 million round figure, the agency’s explanation for its large purchases can be assessed. For Immigration (ICE), DHS claims that 1,000 rounds per firearm per year are necessary for training. Assuming training of 250 rounds per quarter, this estimate seems reasonable.

The Federal Protective Service or “FPS” (the agency charged with protecting federal facilities owned or leased by the General Services Administration) also uses “1000 rounds of ammunition per firearm per year for quarterly qualifications and training.” Again, another reasonable number.


Curiously, no average training rounds per firearm for any other component agency of DHS is provided. For US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), DHS gives a percentage, stating that 70% of all CBP ammo is used for training. The remaining 30% of CBP’s ammo stock is purportedly maintained for operational needs (20%) and reserves (10%). For USSS (the Secret Service), 60% of its ammo is used for training.

Another quirk in DHS’s explanation is that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), whose mission is to “train those who protect our homeland” by training personnel from 91 federal agencies, has another approximately 35 million training rounds (almost 19 million on hand in November 2012 plus the estimated 16.6 million purchased this fiscal year) that are supposedly in addition to training rounds maintained by the other individual DHS component agencies like ICE, CPB, and FPS.

So, really, the only way to properly assess the numbers from DHS – assuming that the agency has actually come clean on its inventories and future purchases – is to divide the ammunition stocks by the number of armed personnel.

Let’s start with FPS. According to the DHS website, FPS has approximately 900 armed agents. Supposedly, the FPS has an available stock of approximately 3.8 million rounds this year (2.5 million on hand in November plus the estimated 1.3 million purchased this fiscal year) . DHS claims its stock is explained by the 1000 rounds per firearm training requirement. No operational inventory is disclosed.

Dividing the FPS stock of 3.8 million rounds by 900, provides well over 4,000 rounds per armed FPS employee, over four times the ammo necessary for annual training.

The ICE numbers give us a similar result. This agency has about 56.9 million rounds for this fiscal year (42.3 million on-hand as of November plus an estimated purchase of 14.68 million this fiscal year). ICE has about 20,000 employees of which 12,446 carry firearms. This DHS agency has also armed itself to the tune of well over 4,000 rounds per gun-toting ICE employee, well over the 1,000 rounds need for annual training and far in excess of any peace-time operational requirements.

CBP’s is almost as bad. This agency has about 129.7 million rounds for this fiscal year (94.4 million on-hand as of November plus an estimated purchase of over 35.3 million rounds this fiscal year). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, CBP agency has about 37,000 armed employees. That equates into approximately 3,500 rounds per firearm-carrying CBP officer, well in excess of the 1,000 rounds necessary for annual training.

Looking at the entire DHS, the DOJ’s 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that the DHS had approximately 55,000 armed officers (relying on 2008 data). Although one newspaper claimed last month that DHS now has 65,000 armed personnel, DHS is claiming it has at least 100,000 armed agents. (This is an enormous increase, perhaps even more troubling than federal agencies’ ammunition purchases.)

Taking the DHS ammunition on hand in November (263.7 million rounds) plus the estimated purchases of 105 million this fiscal year, provides a rough estimate of over 3,500 rounds per armed DHS federal agent. This is well over three times the training needs for DHS personnel and over ten times what’s necessary for operational needs (using CPB’s 30% figure for operational and reserve needs).

I should note, however, that the CPB 30% figure for operations and reserves is questionable enough given the limited firearms usage of these agencies in the field. A quick perusal of the nation’s news reveals that very few rounds are fired by these agencies in the line of duty.

So what is DHS doing with several hundred million rounds of extra ammo? No one seems to have given a reasonable answer.

Certainly, no one can fault DHS for wanting to make certain that its component agencies have what they need for any constitutionally-prescribed civilian duties. But arming them with many times the ammo necessary for current missions serves only to worry civil libertarians and drain the federal treasury. And not giving forthright and timely answers to a US Senator can only serve to drive even more speculation as to what these federal agencies are up to.