The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 2,200 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 4 years to get that many views.
There has been lots of talk over the past few months about gun control by the main stream media and liberals in general. This was anticipated following the shooting in an Aurora, Colorado theater at the opening of The Dark Knight Rises. It escalated over the next couple of months until the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Because so many young children were killed, the emotional response was increased, but I’ll bet most people never heard of a shooting that took place at a theater just two days after the one in Newtown and for good reason; it didn’t go with the liberal’s agenda.
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio, Texas for the sole purpose of killing his ex-girlfriend, because she had broke up with him. The gunman, 19 year old Jesus Manuel Garcia, apparently did not complete his task. He opened fire in the theater which caused mass panic. People were running for cover and rushing towards exits, according to police and witnesses.
At least two people were wounded in the shooting.
So why was there not widespread news footage covering this event? The shooter was stopped. The Santikos Mayan Palace 14 Movie Theater also houses a small restaurant. The shooting began in the restaurant and as people went for cover, Garcia began to fire outside at an unmarked police car. He then moved to the theater where off duty Bexar County Sheriff Officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who was working the theater, chased Garcia to the back of the theater and cornered him in the men’s room, shooting him several times and taking his gun.
Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, said, “She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater.”
Armando Oguin, an off-duty San Antonio Independent School District police officer restrained Garcia with handcuffs. He was then taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center, where he was in stable condition in intensive care the following Monday.
My guess is, because the shooting was stopped by an off duty officer and the fact that the crime was not committed with an AR-15 has something to do with why this did not get mass coverage. The fact that no one killed probably adds to that. So what was used? A Glock 23, according to this report.
The Glock 23 is a .40 caliber handgun that holds 13 rounds in its magazine and 1 in the chamber. This is one of hundreds of handguns that would come under Senator Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban” bill. Of course, no AR-15 rifle for the media and the left to call for more bans on alleged “assault weapons” and there was not mental health issues for anyone to jump on either.
This really should speak volumes for the media’s silence. Yes, the person that stopped the shooter was a police officer, but consider they were off duty and allowed to carry their weapon at the theater.
The point is that the good guy, or in this case, the good gal, had a gun to stop the bad guy. Otherwise, everyone else was a potential victim. Sgt. Castellano is to be congratulated for her bravery and ending what could have potentially been a deadly situation.
After contacting the movie theater I learned that they openly display signs, just like at the Aurora theater, that concealed weapons are not allowed. Therefore, it seems that once again a theater takes it upon itself to create victims, rather than empower individuals to protect themselves. Obviously the criminal, Mr. Garcia, paid no attention to the law or the signs.
Garcia was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bail was set at $1 million.
Why Shooters Don’t Attack Gun Shows & Police Stations |
 Why Shooters Don’t Attack Gun Shows & Police Stations |
|
||||||
|
|
|
 Piers Morgan: Both the Bible & Constitution Are Inherently Flawed |
 Why Muslim Nations Don’t Provide Disaster Relief |
President Obama has put the extension of the tax cuts for most Americans at the top of his domestic agenda, a remarkable turnaround for Democrats, who had staunchly opposed the tax breaks when they were written into law about a decade ago.
R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and an architect of the Bush tax cuts, said it is “deeply ironic” for Democrats to favor extending most of them, given what he called their “visceral” opposition a decade ago. Keeping the lower rates even for income under $250,000 “would enshrine the vast bulk of the Bush tax cuts,” he said.
Democrats say they have reconsidered their opposition to the Bush tax cuts for several reasons. The cuts were written into law from 2001 to 2003 after a decade in which most Americans saw robust income growth. Over the past decade, by contrast, median wages have declined, after adjusting for inflation, amid a weak economy. Allowing tax cuts for the middle class to expire would further reduce take-home pay.
“We’ve had these tax cuts in place since 2001. The world changes, and the economy is where it is,” said Steven Elmendorf, who was chief of staff to former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a primary opponent of the Bush tax cuts. “With people’s economic status, we should not be raising taxes on people earning under $250,000.”
What’s more, income inequality has been growing. Sparing the middle class higher taxes while requiring the wealthy to pay more would tip the scales slightly in the other direction.
“The reason there’s been this movement toward broad consensus on renewing the tax cut for working- and middle-class families is that will give us a sharper progressivity in the tax system that is very much desired by Democrats and progressives who’ve seen an income distribution more and more distorted toward the wealthy,” said Betsey Stevenson, former chief economist in Obama’s Labor Department and a professor at the University of Michigan, who added that taxes may have to rise even more than currently contemplated to meet the country’s needs.
We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2103 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Fenistein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congrees to authroize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.
Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.
“We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if you were an American citizen or here legally in the country, you would get a trial by jury,” Paul said. “It’s been removed because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country. This is so fundamentally wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a country that it can’t go unnoticed.”
The problem with Paul’s assertion is that there was no protection for anyone, whether they are a citizen of the US, a permanent resident or a visitor. Rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution be damned! Neither the NDAA, nor the amendment proposed protected one person who is on American Soil.
Paul called the NDAA an “abomination.” It is that, but so was the Feinstein amendment and even more so because it was deceptive at its core.
The Senate easily passed NDAA 2013 by a vote of 81-14. The next stop is Obama’s desk.
Today is: December 26, 2012 | 3:40 PM
By: Ann Coulter
12/26/2012 04:49 PM
Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier each year? And let’s face it, Kwanzaa’s gotten way too commercialized.
A few years ago, I suspended my annual Kwanzaa column because my triumph over this fake holiday seemed complete. The only people still celebrating Kwanzaa were presidential-statement writers and white female public school teachers.
But it seems to be creeping back. A few weeks ago, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., complained about having to stick around Washington for fiscal cliff negotiations by accusing Republicans of not caring about “families” coming together to bond during Kwanzaa. The private schools have picked up this PC nonsense from the public schools. (Soon, no one will know anything.)
It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga — founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. He was also a dupe of the FBI.
In what was ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better.
By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.
Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution (although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers). Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves.
United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named “Jamal” are currently in prison?)
It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.
Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. “was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)
In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”
Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot to death two Black Panthers on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.
Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming legacy of the Worst Generation.
In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani — the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.
Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life — economics, work, personality, even litter removal. (“Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.”) It takes a village to raise a police snitch.
When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites. (Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)
While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” — excluding, one hopes, the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor — Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.” There’s an inclusive philosophy for you.
Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity.
Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, they have forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.
Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas. (Merry Christmas, fellow Christians!)
Sing to “Jingle Bells”:
Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!
All Scripture References are from the New International Version
John 1:1-3; 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(After the fall of man); Gen 3:14-15; 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Gen 49:10; The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his. Num 24:17; “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.
Isa 7:14; … the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 9:6-7; 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. Mic 5:2; “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Dan 9:25-26; 25 “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.
39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”
56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.
Matt 1:18-25; 18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”-which means, “God with us.”
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her …..
Luke 2:1-20; 2:1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to his own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
John 3:16-21; 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
John 1: 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. …. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'” 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Heb 2: 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. …. 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (1 John 3:8b; The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.)
16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
1 Peter 1:19-21; 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Rom 10:8-13; 9 …. if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
1 John 1; That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
1 John 2:1-2; My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 Tim 3:16: “…. He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”
“‘Twas the Night Before Jesus Came”
Twas the night before Jesus came and all through the house
not a creature was praying, not one in the house.
Their Bibles were laid on the shelf without care,
in hopes that Jesus would not come there.
The children were dressing to crawl into bed,
no one ever kneeling or bowing a head.
And mom in her rocker and baby in her lap,
were watching the late show while I took a nap.
When out of the East there rose such a clatter,
I sprang to my feet to see what was the mater.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
tore open the window and threw up the sash.
When what to me wondering eyes should appear,
but Angels proclaiming that Jesus was here.
With a light like the sun sending forth a bright ray,
I knew in a moment this must be the day.
The light in His face made me cover my head,
it was Jesus returning just like He said.
And though I possessed worldly wisdom and wealth,
I cried when I saw Him in spite of myself.
In the Book of Life which He held in His hand,
was written the name of every saved man.
He spoke not a word as He searched for my name,
when He said, “It’s not here.” My head hung in shame.
The peoples whose names had been written with love,
He gathered to take to His Father above.
With those who were ready, He rose without a sound,
while the rest were left standing around.
I feel to my knees, but it was too late,
I waited too long and thus sealed my fate.
I stood and I cried as they rose out of sight,
Oh, if only I had been ready tonight.
In the words of this poem the meaning is clear,
the coming of Jesus is drawing near.
There’s only one life and when comes the last call,
we’ll find that the Bible was true after all.
Author Unknown
Large purchases of ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have been in the news quite a bit this year and while I understand that an argument can be made for large purchases considering the number of employees that train and have to qualify annually, it does begin to raise questions about large purchases in a short amount of time. Consider the latest presolicitation from DHS for 250,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition over the next five years. That’s 50 million rounds per year. In light of that, some have questioned whether Barack Obama is gearing up for a civil war.
This solicitation follows up a Special Notice that was filed three months ago on behalf of the Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the Special Notice, the stated purpose is:
The purpose of this solicitation is to achieve price savings over the current 40 SW ammunition. Resulting award will be used for training/qualifications only, not for duty use.
James Smith at Prepper Podcast Radio Network reports:
In August of 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requested and awarded a contract for 350,000,000 (350 MILLION) rounds.
See the following articles:
The History Of DHS Ammunition Purchases
DHS/ICE is over-gunned and over manned
Latest ammunition purchase reeks of collusion and Chicago Style politics
DHS prepares for fiscal cliff by ordering hundreds of thousands of roundsClick here for a list of ALL the ammunition purchases since 2009.
For a grand total now of 1,140,618,530 or 1.1 BILLION rounds.
What, pray tell does an agency with less than 50,000 people need 700,000,000 rounds of ammunition for other than storing up in preparation for a major event?
In addition it should be mentioned that earlier this year, in August, DHS had purchased 750 million rounds of high powered ammunition. In March the Agency purchased 450 million hollow point bullets and in September they purchased another 200 million sniper rounds of ammunition.
DHS has not been the only federal agency purchasing ammunition. While the Social Security Administration attempted to respond to the press about their purchases, they ended up actually making a very good case for individuals to carry their weapons.
What is ironic is that these purchases are all being made as the siren call of the left goes out demanding more gun control laws be implemented, with only the government and obviously criminals having access to certain types of firearms.
The question I have is, is this really about cost effectiveness? Or is that merely a line we are being sold by the administration? It could be that this is merely “business as usual” or it could be something else. I’ll let the reader investigate and come to their own conclusions.
Today is: December 20, 2012 | 2:50 PM
By: Ann Coulter
12/19/2012 07:05 PM
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
|
|||||||
Chicago likes to compare itself to other world cities, so Ward Room thought it would find out how we rank in violence. It turns out no one can top us. Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate — higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo.
Chicago’s murder spree of 19.4 per 100,000 is more than three times that of New York’s (6 per 100,000) and more than two and a half times of Los Angeles’ (7.5 per 100,000), its closest American competitors. Caracas, Venezuela, which apparently is not an Alpha world city–thank you Hugo Chavez–has a higher murder rate of 130 per 100,000.
In the American cities mentioned, most of the murders are committed with guns. These cities all have laws against murder. They even have laws against guns; Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But, no matter. As President Barack Obama (D)approvingly quoted from the gangster movie The Untouchables when on the campaign trail in Philadelphia four years ago,
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
Of course, this attitude was prior to Obama’s evolution on gun control.
Interestingly, Obama thought guns were a rural, small town phenomena, not part of normal life in his big city, as evidenced by comments he made at an elite fund raiser in San Francisco also four years ago.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Hmmm, wrong again.
Most of the murderers and murdered look like the sons Obama never had. Many of the murdered in Chicago live in the district Obama represented in the Illinois state legislature, another corrupt body representing Chicago and Illinois values. Hispanics are another group disproportionately represented in these violent American urban statistics.
And as for Emanuel’s devotion to non violent, all inclusive Chicago values, the New York Times relates what they call “the best Rahm Emanuel story.” And it has nothing to do about guns. A knife, yes; guns, no.
The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time – the many times – that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor’s race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.
It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton’s chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe’s, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies – Democrats, Republicans, members of the press – who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.
Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.
”Dead!” he screamed.
The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ”Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!”
So, with this kind of Chicago leadership and its Chick-fil-A priorities it was not too surprising to read Sunday morning’s news about a typical Saturday summer night in the city, further confirmationof Chicago’s #1 violent ranking.
The Chinese state-controlled media’s statement, titled “Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for US Gun Control,” is primarily focused on the Newtown tragedy in which 26 Americans were killed by a mad gunman. Twenty of the victims were young children.
The Chinese government stated, “Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.”
In an apparent effort to restrict information to their populace, the Chinese government wrote of a number of US mass shootings but failed to mention they were either stopped by a citizen legally carrying a firearm or otherwise only occurred in the controversial gun-free zones that critics say make prime targets for madmen.
The Chinese government states:
The past six months have seen enough shooting rampages in the United States. Just three days ago, three people were shot dead at a shopping mall in Oregon. Two weeks ago, a football player shot his girlfriend dead and then committed suicide. Five months ago, 12 people were killed and 58 wounded in a shooting spree at a midnight screening of a Batman film in Colorado.
The government went on to express a strong dislike of the National Rifle Association while also attacking the Republican Party as somehow complicit in the violence. Conversely, the article heaps praise on the Democratic Party:
The Clinton government launched a series of gun control policies at the end of last century. And the Democrats lost the Congressional election in 1994 and the presidential election in 2000, with the shadow of the NRA present in both defeats.
The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has made the decision to appoint a replacement for retiring U.S. Senator Jim DeMint. She has chosen Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC), a very conservative Republican. He’s also happens to have dark skin, which would make him the only United States Senator who is black. So why would the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People oppose such a man? Precisely because he doesn’t go along with “their agenda.”
Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.
“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”
“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.
“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.
Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.
It seems that Shelton has a problem because Scott is a thoroughly conservative Republican. While claiming that his voting record “raises major concerns,” he failed to cite exactly what those concerns were. I have a feeling they have something to do with things like a perfect voting record when it comes to pro-life issues. Perhaps it’s his stand on the Second Amendment or maybe it has to do with the fact that he actually believes in the God of the Bible and marriage in the way that is defined in the Scriptures.
He did however, point to what she thought Scott would work towards and that was a vision of “small government.” Oh boy! That is exactly what the opposition to liberals and the NAACP want!
Shelton said, “Small government usually means, as it’s being described these days, the elimination of the role of government and support for initiatives and programs that are crucial for the African-American community.”
“When the discussions about small government were utilized by Ronald Reagan, he appointed Bill Bennett as the Secretary of Education. Bill Bennett had actually voted during his time in the House of Representatives to eliminate the Department of Education,” Shelton continued. “That’s not within the African-American community’s best interest.”
Not only that, but Shelton claims that Scott, by holding to the view of smaller government, would decrease the amount of federal assistance for housing, which he also claims would be a signal of abandoning civil rights regulations. Shelton added that Scott, “has demonstrated a record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the NAACP’s noted African-American community.”
Seriously? Why would a man with dark skin oppose civil rights? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest? Of course it would. He opposes no such thing. The opposition is against government dependency. Federal assistance for housing and other government goodies are not part of civil rights. The civil rights movement was over the issue of being treated equally, not special.
By the way, Rep. Scott is a Tea Party guy. That’s right, he’s one of those men that the left, along with the NAACP, claim are not welcome in the Tea Party!
In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network in 2010, Rep. Scott said,
“Certainly I feel like I’m the tip of the arrow at times because certainly the national media wants to talk about the fact that I’m a black Republican and some people think of that as zany that a black person would be a conservative but to me what is zany is any person black, white, red, brown or yellow not being a conservative.”
“Sometimes you think to yourself man what is this for because there have been attacks simply because I’m a black conservative. If you think of everything Martin Luther King Jr. stood for which is content not color and then to be trashed in different places because you’re a conservative who happens to be black it just goes against the very concept that we are doing our very best to get to the day that the person is judged by the content of the character not the color of their skin.”
“I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person.”
And lest you think Scott was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he clears that up too. “It’s painful at times when people shoot at you because they can or because they look for things that aren’t real because you have a good story,” said Scott. “The truth is the story is good today. Absolutely good story. It wasn’t good living it. Let’s just be real. The fact of the matter is when you’re flunking out of High School its funny today because we made it right? I say “we” because me and the Lord. We made it. The fact is it wasn’t fun in the 9th grade. I mean my parents were divorced and I felt a sense of abandonment. It wasn’t fun growing up like that but God has been so faithful and merciful that Romans 8:28 actually works that when I discovered the truth of his word that it started bringing these pieces and jagged edges together and making smooth edges out of it and that all the things that I’ve gone through have now served me in a way that allows me to serve other people. That’s a miracle!”
But the NAACP doesn’t want to hear that. In fact, Shelton held out hope that Scott would “recognize that awesome responsibility (of working in the Senate) and that they would see “a change in how he votes and what he advocates for in a way more consistent with the NAACP.”
The truth is the NAACP’s agenda is anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-family anti-repsponibility, big government dependency and Rep. Scott will not adhere to their agenda. I think it’s a good thing that one’s character stands out the way Rep. Scott’s does, that even those who normally use the issue of skin color are completely beside themselves over the only black man being in the U.S. Senate is a conservative Republican. After all, Democrats claim to be the party of minorities. So much for that hot air!
President Barack Obama constantly talks about the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together and come up with a compromised plan to avert the fiscal cliff. However, in his latest action, he has made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of compromising anything and fully expects Republicans to cave in and agree to ALL of his DEMANDS. That’s why The Daily Caller referred to Obama as Demander-in-Chief.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been caving in bit by bit to Obama’s demands, much to the ire of many Republicans. In his latest compromised proposal, he has offered to raise taxes on everyone making $1 million per year and extending the debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. The tax increases on the top earners would place most of them paying over 50% in federal, state and local income taxes and net the federal government an estimated $460 billion a year.
However, Boehner’s plan also called for spending cuts, which Obama keeps saying he’ll get to tomorrow, kind of like your kids will clean their rooms tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. A year ago when we were in the same situation, Obama promised that if the GOP accepted his ‘compromised’ plan then that he would address spending cuts after the first of the year. That promise never happened and instead of trying to cut spending, he kept spending more and more.
In the compromised plan prior to this one, Boehner was offering to cut or eliminate mortgage interest and charitable donations tax deductions. This would have cost the average American family a huge chunk of money and put thousands of charities out of business.
Boehner has been presenting compromised plans that go against almost everything the Republican Party stands for and many in the GOP are not pleased. Boehner’s position as Speaker of the House next year is very much in jeopardy with the way he has been abandoning his party and constituents. That wouldn’t bother me one bit and as Boehner has been a wishy-washy leader anyway. I would much rather see someone like Paul Ryan or Darrell Issa replace Boehner as Speaker of the House as both men have the courage and backbone to stand up against Obama, the Democratic Party and their dictatorial demands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Twas’ 11 days before Christmas, around 9:38when 20 beautiful children stormed through heaven’s gate.
their smiles were contagious, their laughter filled the air…
they could hardly believe all the beauty they saw there
They were filled with such joy, they didn’t know what to say they remembered nothing of what had happened earlier that day.
“where are we?” asked a little girl, as quiet as a mouse. “this is heaven.”
declared a small boy. “we’re spending Christmas at God’s house.”
When what to their wondering eyes did appear, but Jesus, their savior, the children gathered near.
He looked at them and smiled, and they smiled just the same. then He opened His arms and He called them by name.
and in that moment was joy, that only heaven can bring
those children all flew into the arms of their King
and as they lingered in the warmth of His embrace, one small girl turned and looked at Jesus’ face.
And as if He could read all the questions she had
He gently whispered to her, “I’ll take care of mom and dad.”
then He looked down on earth, the world far below
He saw all of the hurt, the sorrow, and woe
then He closed His eyes and He outstretched His hand,
“Let My power and presence re-enter this land!”
“may this country be delivered from the hands of fools” “I’m taking back my nation. I’m taking back my schools!”
Then He and the children stood up without a sound.
“come now my children, let me show you around.”
Excitement filled the space, some skipped and some ran.
all displaying enthusiasm that only a small child can.
And I heard Him proclaim as He walked out of sight,
“in the midst of this darkness, I AM STILL THE LIGHT.”
~Author unknown
The new terrorist in the United States isn’t wearing suicide vests and sporting AK-47s; they are wearing suits and ties and have law degrees. They are members of the state’s bars, state and federal legislatures, Islamic charities/lobbies, and members of the Judiciary. They run tax free IRS sanctioned non-for-profits as fronts to further the cause of Sharia acceptance in American Society and American Courts.
Before the “not all Muslims are bad people” crowd skip the rest of this column and proceed to defend the greatest threat to American freedom and security we face, let me say this: I don’t care what you think. Do business with whomever you wish. Marry an Islamist for all I care. Just don’t come complaining when some Judge or Elected Official tells you that American law no longer applies and you must live under Islamic subjugation.
Today in the United States there are well over 50 courts cases in various state and appellate courts that involve the use of the Muslim faith and its Sharia law. Business disputes, child custody, property division, criminal defense and Constitutional protections are being attacked by the Islamic legal community operating in our country. You will find a list and study of each high priority case at the following website www.shariahinamericancourts.com.
Many state Legislatures have taken the lead in attempting to pass legislation preventing any religious or international law from interfering or superseding the laws of their State and the United States Constitution and the Islamic community in America and abroad is fighting back. Foreign money operating U.S. based (non-taxable) charities benefitting Islamic Sharia advocacy in the U.S. judicial system is expansive and epidemic.
For decades Islamists have infiltrated our universities, business communities, government, and now they have a foot in the door of our legislatures and judiciaries. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (www.amjaonline.org) a 501c3 was established to lead the Muslim community to a “better understanding of the practice of the religion of Islam in Western Societies.” Sounds innocent enough until you take a look at their website. Under the “Declaration” heading you will find advice on “Issue’s facing the Muslim Family in the West” and counsel on Sharia obedience.
One such piece of advice deals with Insurance. According to the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America entering into a contract for insurance conflicts with the tenets of Islam or Sharia and should only be done if no other choice is given and it can be disputed on religious grounds in court. I wonder how Obamacare is going to work or how something as simple as automobile insurance laws and resulting torts will be affected by Sharia compliance in America. It appears that crossing ones fingers behind your back is now a respectable legal defense.
Since I only have 700 words to work with let me just say that they are advising all Muslims to ignore any laws that conflict with Sharia in all matters related to living outside of an Islamic Majority State. In other words, to be a good servant of Islam, the faith and Sharia obedience take precedence over any government or contract and many American Judges are entertaining Sharia principles and law when rendering civil and criminal court decisions all over our Nation.
Sharia law as documented in the Quran and Hadiths is explicit in its demand for adherence and practice by true Muslim believers. Contrary to what some accommodating American’s may believe Sharia law is not a myth; it is becoming a dangerous reality in America. “Islamaphobic” the term that will be used to characterize this article was created by Islamists much in the same way “homophobic” is used to demean and vilify traditional American values in more tolerant political circles. Ad hominem attacks by the culturally tolerant may be a convenient distraction from the successful advances of anti-American ideologies like Sharia, but only if the American public turns a blind eye to this insipient influence metastasizing in our American Courts.
The State of Michigan, home to our first Muslim U.S. Congressman and a state with one of the largest and growing populations of foreign born Muslims is joining nineteen other states in considering legislation designed to protect all its residents against application of foreign law and religious law in U.S. civil and criminal court cases. Four U.S. states already have such legislation and a U.S. House bill (HR 973) has been authored and referred to committee to address this issue.
I urge every U.S. citizen to contact their representatives and show support for these kinds of laws. Our nation has a history of waiting until we have a problem before acting to resolve it; especially amongst the electorate. We don’t need a “Sharia cliff” in America any more than we need special protections for one religious belief over another. Get active now.
The following is a quiz on The Birth Of Jesus the Christ developed by http://www.biblequizzes.org.uk. Please be honest and take the test first, THEN check your answers. If you would like a printable quiz to hand out at your Sunday School Class, or Bible Study Group Christmas Party, please email me at mrb562@roadrunner.com. I will email you the test with answer sheet. I also have a little tougher quiz for those “wise-guys” that think they know it all.
Enjoy.
By (http://www.biblequizzes.org.uk/offers.php).
1: Where was Jesus born?
2: Who was the mother of Jesus?
3: What did Jesus sleep in after he was born?
4: How many wise men does the Bible say came to visit Jesus?
5: How did the wise men know that the King of the Jews had been born?
6: Which of the following is not a gift that the wise men brought for Jesus?
7: Who else came to visit Jesus?
8: Who said “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill to men”?
9: Who wanted to kill Jesus?
10: Who was the father of Jesus?
11: What ritual did Jesus undergo when he was eight days old?
12: What was Jesus wrapped in when he was born?
13: What was special about Jesus’ mother?
14: How were the family warned that someone wanted to kill Jesus?
15: To what country did he family escape to after they were warned of the death threat to Jesus?
16: In what city did King Herod live?
17: Children in the region of what age were to be killed, in the hope that Jesus would also be killed?
18: What was the name of the man Jesus’ mother was engaged to at the time she became pregnant?
19: Who was Jesus descended from?
20: In what city was Jesus brought up as a child?
1. Where was Jesus born? Bethlehem … Matt 2:1 – Bethlehem means ‘house of bread’.
2. Who was the mother of Jesus? Mary … Matt 2:11
3. What did Jesus sleep in after he was born? Manger … Luke 2:7
4. How many wise men does the Bible say came to visit Jesus? It doesn’t say ... There is no indication of how many wise men visited Jesus, except that there were at least two because the word ‘magi’ is plural.
5. How did the wise men know that the King of the Jews had been born? They saw a star in the East … Matt 2:2 – Much has been written about the star, but all we can really say for sure is there was a luminous object which appeared for a special purpose.
6. Which of the following is not a gift that the wise men brought for Jesus? Silver … Matt 2:11
7. Who else came to visit Jesus? Shepherds … Luke 2:15
8. Who said “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill to men”? Angels … Luke 2:13-14 – It is interesting to note that the angels ‘said’ and did not sing as we are led to believe by many of our popular hymns.
9. Who wanted to kill Jesus? Herod … Matt 2:16 – Herod was threatened by a rival who was to be a future King of the Jews and sought to kill him to remove the threat to his throne.
10. Who was the father of Jesus? God … Mark 1:1 – Throughout the gospels Jesus is called the Son of God and had no genetic connection to Joseph. Jesus was born from God’s power, the Holy Spirit, acting upon Mary and for this reason his father was God and his mother was Mary. He was therefore called both the Son of God and also the Son of Man.
11. What ritual did Jesus undergo when he was eight days old? Circumcision … Luke 2:21 – Jesus was a Jew and so would be obliged to undergo this ritual.
12. What was Jesus wrapped in when he was born? Swaddling clothes … Luke 2:7 – When a Jewish child was born, it was usual for it to be washed in water, rubbed in salt and wrapped in swaddling clothes, which are bands or blankets that confined the limbs closely. (Ezek 16:4)
13. What was special about Jesus’ mother? She was a virgin … Matt 1:23 – Matthew clearly understands this to be a literal virgin (cf Luke 1:34) and implies that the conception was miraculous.
14. How were the family warned that someone wanted to kill Jesus? In a dream … Matt 2:13 – The angel only appeared to Joseph in a dream and didn’t actually visit them in a physical sense. Also the angel appeared only to Joseph and not to them both.
15. To what country did he family escape to after they were warned of the death threat to Jesus? Egypt ... Matt 2:14 – They departed immediately under the cover of darkness.
16. In what city did King Herod live? . Matt 2:1,3
17. Children in the region of what age were to be killed, in the hope that Jesus would also be killed? 2 years and under … Matt 2:16 – Jesus could well have been nearly two years old by the time the wise men visited him.
18. What was the name of the man Jesus’ mother was engaged to at the time she became pregnant?
Joseph … Luke 1:27
19. Who was Jesus descended from? King David … Matt 1:1 – It was important to trace the genealogy of Jesus back to David as the promise had been made that the Messiah would be part of his family (Jer 23:5)
20. In what city was Jesus brought up as a child? Nazareth … Matt 2:23 – and so the prophecy that he shall be called a Nazarene was fulfilled.
Former United States Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine) and Iraq War Veteran Jon Hammar endured much in his tour in the streets of Fallujah, but now he spends most of his time chained to a bed in a Mexican jail on trumped up gun charges that could result in twelve years in jail. Not surprisingly his former commander-in-chief Barack Obama has been absolutely silent on the matter, even though he was arrested on August 13. Didn’t anyone tell you this?
Hammar took to Mexico with a friend to surf, as it was the only thing that seemed to ease his mind following his service in Iraq. He is now within walking distance of the U.S. border, but sadly does not possess the freedom to do so.
And why is a former Marine chained to a bed in a Mexican Jail? McClatchy DC reports:
The reason might seem ludicrous. Hammar took a six-decade-old shotgun into Mexico. The .410 bore Sears & Roebuck shotgun once belonged to his great-grandfather. The firearm had been handed down through the generations, and it had become almost a part of Hammar, suitable for shooting birds and rabbits.
But Mexican prosecutors who looked at the disassembled relic in the 1972 Winnebago motor home dismissed the U.S. registration papers Hammar had filled out. They charged him with a serious crime: possession of a weapon restricted for use to Mexico’s armed forces.
Hammar isn’t the only American accused of questionable gun-related charges at Mexico’s border. Last April, a truck driver who was carrying ammunition through Texas got lost near the border, dipped into Mexico to make a U-turn and was forced to spend more than six months in jail.
According to his grandmother the shotgun was more like a “glorified BB gun.”
Both Hammar and his friend Ian McDonough were arrested, not because of the gun, which had cleared customs, but because of the length of the barrel. The Mexican prosecutors “dismissed the U.S. registration papers Hammar had filled out,” charging Hammar with the serious crime of “possession of a weapon restricted for use to Mexico’s armed forces”:
Curiously, it wasn’t the type of shotgun that broke Mexican law. It was the length of the barrel, which the formal citation said was shorter than 25 inches, although a discrepancy has emerged over how the barrel was measured.
Hammar’s friend, Mcdonough, was released and allowed to walk back into Texas.
According to Marine Sgt. James Garcia, who served with Hammar in several combat situations, he said Hammar was “one of the best we had.” According to the reports Hammer, who is now only 27 years old, “joined the Marines and deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq before receiving an honorable discharge in 2007, serving another four years in inactive reserve.”
During his stay he has received death threats and as he was sent to a state prison in Matamoros, his parents in Florida received extortion phone calls demanding $1,800. They did not pay, but instead contacted U.S. diplomats who were able to get Hammar moved from a wing of the prison controlled by a Mexican drug cartel into solitary confinement.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said, “His family has described a very disturbing situation that includes their son being chained to a bed in a very small cell and receiving calls from fellow inmates threatening his life if they did not send them money. The family also says that the jail where their son is being held is controlled by the dreaded and brutal Zetas drug cartel. The family wants their son back home, and I will do my best to help them.”
I’m pretty sure the Mexico is pretty ticked off still over our government’s blatant supplying of arms to Mexican drug cartels with the Fast and Furious scandal has hurt our relationship with them. No doubt there should be no need to take it out on a U.S. citizen, but this is what happens when you have a man like Barack Obama in the White House.
While Garcia says, “He doesn’t deserve this. We never leave a brother behind. We never leave a Marine behind. We have to do something,” and the Hammar’s own representative says she will do all she can to help, Barack Obama has said absolutely nothing on the matter or lifted a finger to help this marine who served his country.
Written on Thursday, December 6, 2012 by Dennis Marcellino
As I watch the Christmas specials on television, it’s kind of sad to see all the songs being hyper and about snow and reindeer and winter. It’s sad because I remember decades past when there was a feeling of beauty in the carols and in THE story of Christmas.
But as I had to turn the channel because of just one more offensive song on the Sing Off Christmas (not so) Special, I turned it to a “Charlie Brown Christmas” (with the music written and performed by my cousin Vince Guaraldi) and was surprised to see the story line being Charlie Brown looking for the “true meaning of Christmas” that ended up being the Bible’s story. The credits said that this show was made in 1965. My, how times have changed.
But let me now back up the title of my article here … not just with personal memories … but with real data.
First of all, the fact that the nation was happier and more in love is easily proven by comparing the music of today with the music of the pre-1966 decades. This is also true for the movies and television shows, including their Christmas specials, all of which included religious songs and themes. In fact, many might be surprised to know who the overall #1 television personality of 1952 was. Bishop Fulton Sheen won the 1952 Emmy Award for “Most Outstanding Television Personality” … even over the comedians, musicians, hosts, actors and politicians. In the 1950s he was not only a very prominent TV “star,” his television program, “Life is Worth Living,” became the No. 1 program on the national networks. The “star” of Texaco Star Theater, Milton Berle was known as “Mr. Television” at the time, and Bishop Sheen topped him.
Here are some other differences between the Christmases when I grew up in the 1950s to 1960s and today.
And just to show the general respect for religion in the country back then:
One of my main motives for writing has been that I personally experienced that a society that honors God more is a happier and more loving society. (That’s also been true in my personal life). But for measurable proof, here is a comparison of the statistics between recent and past decades, when following God was more popular.
(1) Violent crime: 1995 = 11.1 x 1957 and 18.5 x 1937
(2) Divorce rate: 1990’s to 1900 = over 100x (0.5% – 50+%)
(3) Overall crime: 1970= 12.25 x 1937 and 6.68 x 1957
(4) U.S. teen suicide rate is higher than the other 26 industrialized nations combined (gun suicides are 11 times greater than the average of the other industrialized nations, and dramatically rising – 62% since 1980).
Had a person fallen asleep in 1960 and awaken today, this is what they’d have found strikingly different in the United States:
• Doubled divorce rate
• Tripled teen suicide
• Quadrupled rate of reported violent crimes
• Quintupled prison population
• Sextupled percent of babies born to unmarried parents
• Sevenfold increase in cohabitations (a predictor of future divorce)
• Soaring rate of depression to ten times the pre-World War II level, by one estimate.
Finally, from a personal perspective, we all carry some fond feelings from our past … some fonder than others. For many years (even when I wasn’t religious at all), the fondest memory that I carried was of a feeling of love and beauty that entered my heart when I remembered a life-sized nativity scene that was tucked away under a cave-like alcove in the lower courtyard of the Catholic school I attended in the third grade. Now that I am religious, it is obvious to me Who infused that feeling of beauty in my heart.
Byline:
For Dennis Marcellino’s books and bestselling Christmas music: www.LighthouseBooksAndMusic.com
In case there is still anyone out there that continues to believe that the 2008 campaign lines that Barack Obama gave about changing the way Washington works, stopping “politics as usual,” and providing more transparency in government are true, then get a load of this. On Wednesday, Obama demonstrated just how partisan and how much of a power grabber he is. He indicated that if he were not given unlimited powers to raise the debt ceiling, apart from Congressional approval, that he might just veto his own tax hike proposal should it come to his desk.
As Obama addressed corporate CEOs at the Business Roundtable, he told them that business leaders “should not accept going through” another debt-ceiling crisis like the one that occurred in 2011, which caused stocks to fall and ended with the first U.S. credit rating downgrade.
He said that the Republicans using the debt ceiling as leverage, in order to get more spending cuts, is not only a “bad strategy for America,” but he was adamant that it was a game he would not play.
The president told the CEOs that a fight over the debt ceiling would cause more uncertainty for business. “We can’t go there again,” Obama said.
He also quoted Business Roundtable President John Engler, the former Republican governor of Michigan, who said the debt ceiling was “not a good weapon for anything except destroying our own credit rating.”
Obama’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Republicans, who argue Congress’s role in raising the debt ceiling serves as a key check on excessive government spending. GOP leaders noted proudly they were able to force some $2 trillion in cuts during the debt-ceiling showdown last year.
“The president wants to have the ability to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants, for as much as he wants, with no responsibility or spending cuts attached,” said spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Don Stewart. “This is an idea opposed by Democrats and Republicans alike; it’s a power grab that has no support here.”
We already know that Obama and the Democrats are not willing to compromise on anything. They even rejected House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal on Tuesday, which was blasted by conservatives. Obama is going to play hardball and the Republicans had better wake up to that. You’ve been dealing with the man for four years now.
Consequently, Obama’s own proposal could not pass either the House or the Senate, but apparently he wants to be the “Buzz Lightyear” of debt and demand the power, given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and go from $16 trillion to “infinity and beyond!” Congress must keep him in check or it will most certainly spell the end for the U.S. economy.
Today, columnist Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports and formerly of the Kansas City Star, blamed the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution for the murder/suicide of Jovan Belcher, linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs. Calling for the NFL to have cancelled the Chiefs’ Sunday game, Whitlock wrote:
I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We’ve come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.
Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
By this time you have probably heard about Bob Costas editorial at the end of the half time period in last nights Sunday Night Football game. I was all set to write this then, but thought better of it knowing I should never write and publish anything while I am that angry.
I find his politicizing the above tragedy deplorable. Anyone taking such a major heart-rending event and using it to preach your political position on gun control is horrendously abusing the power of the press. To make matters worse, his quoting a sports writer from Kansas City, Jason Whitlock, is an act of a coward. NBC should be ashamed of that part of the broadcast, yet I have heard nothing from NBC about it, so I can only conclude that they approve of such misuse of their broadcast.
Mr. Costas has the right of any American to give his opinion. However, to misuse the forum of a football broadcast is unarguably wrong. Beside that, I have a few things to say to Mr. Costas and those that agree with him:
Unless Bob Costas is announcing that he is leaving sports and turning to politics, he should keep such personal convictions to himself instead of misusing a national broadcast to spew his rhetoric.
What Did You Say? 
Written
on December 17, 2012