Big Business and Marxist Collusion – Bourgeois Socialism

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The Occupy Movement, as we all know, was and is a tool of the elite. Skilled in projection and deflection, they screamed that big business was the enemy of the people and Marxism was the cure. No sane American would fall for that tripe. What the lame movement, if they had been honest, would have railed against was big business in collusion with big government. A marriage made in hell and brought to you by Barack Obama and the bourgeois socialists.

Listen to what Andrew Wilkow has to say on bourgeois socialism (there are no images – only audio):

We now have many, many examples of these elitists who have crawled into bed with the Marxists… From Warren Buffet, to Jeffrey Immelt of GE, the list is long and inglorious. These are wealthy and powerful businessmen and women looking for security in the arms of Comrade Obama while keeping the proletariat riffraff (that would be you and me) in check and busily working for them and their luxuries in a slavish society that is forcefully equal in misery, except for the upper levels of the bourgeois socialists. GE is probably the worst of the worst. Immelt praises the Chinese communists:

Why not? GE, under Obama’s guidance, has moved a great deal of their business into China where labor is cheaper and regulation and taxation are far less. And now comes word that GE will make nuclear power plant parts in China. Isn’t that sleeping with the enemy? Except, I’m no longer sure who the enemy is. From Bill Gertz at The Washington Free Beacon:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is supporting a bid by General Electric to export jobs and nuclear technology to China by seeking assurances from Beijing that it will not steal or transfer valuable reactor technology, the Free Beacon has learned.

Clinton’s support for a future deal with GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a Wilmington, N.C., company, to make reactor vessels in China for a nuclear plant it hopes to build in India was disclosed in a cable sent Nov. 21 to the United States Embassy in Beijing.

The cable directs embassy officials to seek Beijing’s assurances that GE-Hitachi nuclear technology would not be transferred to other states or stolen, as outlined under the terms of a 2003 U.S.-China agreement on nuclear technology cooperation.

Disclosure of the Obama administration’s support for GE-Hitachi’s bid to manufacture nuclear goods in China comes as GE’s chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, continues to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which advises President Barack Obama on ways to improve the nation’s economy and create jobs.

GE also came under fire last year from Pentagon technology security officials over the company’s joint venture with the state-run Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC) over concerns China would covertly obtain U.S. jet avionics technology that could bolster its growing force of advanced jets.

Immelt is an admirer of Mao and of Barack Obama. Generally, he just loves power. But, his vehicle of choice is Marxism. And GE has a long history of this, but more on that in a minute. Not only is GE smooching with China, they are actively (and knowingly) helping China get nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan – all with Obama’s blessing. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Nope that’s just the nuclear fallout.

While you see all these wealthy companies including Walmart, Pepsi, the big banks, Wall Street, media and a whole slew of others jumping on Obama’s red train, you might ask yourself why? Aren’t they going to be taxed more? Clearly these mega companies did not get the size they are by playing by the same rules you and I do. They know how to ‘shelter’ their companies from most of the taxation and other annoyances. And as an added bennie, if they sneak into the ever-expanding Marxist bed, they are given nifty tax breaks, regulation waivers and other money making contracts. All they have to do is kneel before the state and they can have it all. What’s the going price for a little monetary soul between Marxists these days? About 30 pieces of silver I’d wager. By swearing their allegiance to the government, they will be protected from the commoners – they will be taken into the elite circles where they will be served by their American subjects. Such are the enraptured power dreams of the bourgeois socialists.

Know who else did this? Why, Adolph Hitler of course. That’s right. Many of the companies that aligned with Nazi Germany are still in business today. Prepare to be enlightened:

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government’s political and military goals.

From Business Pundit:

  • General Electric
    In 1946 General Electric was fined by the US government owing to its nefarious wartime activities. In partnership with Krupp, a German manufacturing firm, General Electric deliberately and artificially raised the price of tungsten carbide, a material that was vital for machining metals necessary for the war effort. Though only fined $36,000 in total, General Electric made around $1.5 million out of this scam in 1936 alone, hampering the war effort and increasing the cost of defeating the Nazis. GE also bought shares in Siemens before war broke out, making them complicit in the use of slave labor to build the very same gas chambers where many of the stricken laborers met their end.
  • BMW
    BMW has admitted using up to 30,000 forced laborers during the war. These POWs, slave laborers and inmates of concentration camps produced engines for the Luftwaffe and so were forced to aid the regime in defending itself against those who were trying to save them. BMW focused solely on aircraft and motorcycle manufacture during the war, with no pretense of being anything other than a supplier of war machinery to the Nazis.
  • Nestle
    In 2000, Nestlé paid over $14.5 million into a fund to try to deal with claims of slave labor suffered at their hands from Holocaust survivors and Jewish organizations. The firm has admitted that it acquired a company in 1947 that had used forced labor during the war and has also stated that “[It] is either certain or it may be assumed that some corporations of the Nestlé Group that were active in countries controlled by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime employed forced laborers.” Nestlé helped with the financing of a Nazi party in Switzerland in 1939 and ended up winning a lucrative contract, supplying the entire chocolate needs of the German army during World War II.
  • Novartis
    Bayer, though notorious for its origins as a sub-division of the manufacturer that made the Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, isn’t the only pharmaceutical company with skeletons in its closet. The Swiss chemical companies Ciba and Sandoz merged to form Novartis, most famous for its drug, Ritalin. In 1933, Ciba’s Berlin branch fired all of the Jewish members of its board of directors and replaced them with more “acceptable” Aryan personnel; meanwhile, Sandoz was busy doing the same with its chairman. The companies manufactured dyes, drugs and chemicals for the Nazis during the war. Novartis has owned up to its culpability and tried to make amends in the manner of other complicit firms by contributing $15 million towards a Swiss fund for compensation to the victims of the Nazis.
  • Allianz
    Allianz is the twelfth largest financial services company in the world. Founded in Germany in 1890, it’s no surprise that they were the largest insurer in Germany when the Nazis came to power. As such, they quickly became heavily involved with the Nazi regime. Their CEO, Kurt Schmitt, was also Hitler’s economics minister, and the company insured the facilities and personnel at Auschwitz. Their Director General was in charge of the policy that paid the Nazi state instead of the rightful beneficiaries when Jewish property was damaged following Kristallnacht. What’s more, the company worked closely with the Nazi government to track down the life insurance policies of German Jews sent to the death camps and, during the war, insured the possessions stripped from those same Jewish people on behalf of the Nazis.
  • Coca-Cola
    Fanta is a tasty orange-flavored drink that was originally designed specifically for the Nazis. That’s right, ingredients for the cola that gives the brand its name were difficult to import, so the manager of Coca-Cola’s German operation, Max Keith, came up with a new drink that could be made with available ingredients. In 1941, Fanta debuted on the German market. Max Keith was not himself a Nazi, but his efforts to keep the Coca-Cola operation alive through the war meant that Coca-Cola pocketed some handsome profits and could return to distributing Coke to American GIs stationed in Europe as soon as the war was over.
  • Kodak
    When you think Kodak, you think of happy family photographs and memories caught on film, but what you should really be considering is the slave labor that the German branch of the firm used during World War II. Kodak’s subsidiaries in neutral European countries did brisk business with the Nazis, providing them with both a market for their goods and valuable foreign currency. The Portuguese branch even sent its profits to the branch in the Hague, which was under Nazi occupation at the time. What’s more, this company wasn’t just making cameras; they expanded into the manufacture of triggers, detonators and other military goods for the Germans.
  • Random House
    You may not have heard of Bertelsmann A.G. but you will have heard of the books published by its many subsidiaries, including Random House, Bantam Books and Doubleday. During Nazi rule, Bertelsmann published propaganda and Nazi literature such as “Sterilization and Euthanasia: A Contribution to Applied Christian Ethics.” They even published works by Will Vesper, who had given a rousing speech at the book-burning in 1933. Random House courted Nazi controversy again in 1997 when they added, “a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.” to the Webster’s dictionary definition of Nazi, prompting the Anti-Defamation League to say that it “trivializes and denies the murderous intent and actions of the Nazi regime.”
  • Ford
    Henry Ford himself was a notorious anti-Semite, publishing a collection of articles under the charming title, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford even sponsored his own newspaper which he used as a propaganda piece, blaming the Jews for World War I, and in 1938 he received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal Nazi Germany awarded to foreign citizens. Ford’s German operation produced one third of the militarized trucks used by the German army during the war, with much of the labor done by prisoners. What’s even more shocking is that Ford may have used forced labor as early as 1940 — when the American arm of the company still had complete control.
  • Chase
    On reflection, the collusion of Chase Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase), with the Nazis isn’t so surprising. One of its major shareholders, J.D. Rockefeller, had directly funded Nazi eugenics experiments before the war. Between 1936 and 1941, Chase and other US banks helped the Germans raise over $20 million in dollar exchange, netting over $1.2 million in commission — of which Chase pocketed a cool $500,000. That was a lot of money at the time. The fact that the German marks used to fund the operation came from Jews who had fled Nazi Germany didn’t seem to bother Chase — in fact they upped their business after Kristallnacht (the night Jews throughout Nazi Germany and Austria were systematically attacked by mobs in 1938). Chase also froze the accounts of French Jews in occupied France before the Nazis had even gotten around to asking them to.

Do you see a pattern here? I sure as hell do. Businesses were highly organized (uber community organizers) under Hitler. Hugo Boss designed the militarized uniforms of the SS (as well as the brown shirts of the SA and the Hitler Youth); Volkswagen designed the Beetle at Hitler’s behest and mass produced them using slave labor; Standard Oil provided the gas for the German planes; and IBM designed the punch cards that were used to systematize the extermination of people by race and class.

Charming. All in the name of big business and it is happening again – now in America. What this means for all of America in the end with wealth redistribution is trickle-up poverty. The revenge of our anti-colonialist Marxist leaders will be complete. The Constitution will be no more and in its place will be a new Motherland. When big business colludes with a Marxist government, very bad things happen. Just look at history and you will see our future. Remember, all roads in this realm lead to communism and death. Who needs a Mayan apocalypse when you have Obama?


“Catch Me Now I’m Falling”

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Released during the Carter era, a pro-American song from iconic British band The Kinks.

More appropriate now than ever.

I remember, when you were down
And you needed a helping hand
I came to feed you
But now that I need you
You won’t give me a second glance
Now I’m calling all citizens from all over the world
This is Captain America calling
I bailed you out when you were down on your knees
So will you catch me now I’m falling

Help me now I’m calling you
Catch me now I’m falling
I’m in your hands, it’s up to you
Catch me now I’m falling

I remember when you were down
You would always come running to me
I never denied you and I would guide you
Through all of your difficulties
Now I’m calling all citizens from all over the world
This is Captain America calling
I bailed you out when you were down on your knees
So will you catch me now I’m falling

Help me now I’m calling you
Catch me now I’m falling
I’m in your hands, it’s up to you
Catch me now I’m falling

When you were broke you would come to me
And I would always pull you round
Now I call your office on the telephone
And your secretary tells me that she’s sorry,
But, you’ve gone out of town.

This is Captain America calling
This is Captain America calling

Help me now I’m calling you
Catch me now I’m falling
I’m in your hands, it’s up to you
Catch me now I’m falling

Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling

I stood by you through all of your depressions
And I lifted you when you were down
Now it’s your chance to do the same for me
I call your office and your secretary tells me
That you’ve gone out of town

This is Captain America calling
This is Captain America calling

Catch me now I’m falling

I was the one who always bailed you out
Of your depressions and your difficulties
I never thought that you would let me down
But the next time you’re in trouble
Better not come running to me

Now I’m calling all citizens from all over the world
This is Captain America calling
I bailed you out when you were down on your knees
So will you catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling

Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling
Catch me now I’m falling

Thanks to my good friend Tom. Merry Christmas!


Report Indicates Obama Lied To Nation About Benghazi Attack Motivation

By: Col. Tom Snodgrass
Right Side News

State Department’s Accountability Review Board Report Leaves It To Obama Explain His And His Minions’ Explanations

Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News

Excerpts from the Accountability Review Board (ARB) Report Findings beg further explanation:

1. The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC (Special Mission Benghazi, which is the official designation of the U.S. diplomatic facility) and the Annex (the CIA operations center in Eastern Libya) – and en route between them. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

3. The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”

4. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”

The insufficient ARB Discussion of these findings that demand elaboration:

1. Identification of the perpetrators and their motivations are the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation. The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

2. Through the course of its inquiry, the Board interviewed over 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and viewed hours of video footage. On the basis of its comprehensive review of this information, the Board remains fully convinced that responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack.”

3. The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In addition, at the State Department’s request, the Department of Defense also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional security support for Embassy Tripoli on September 12.”

4. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.”

Analysis of ARB Findings and the insufficient Discussion

First, is should be noted that ARB purports to “discuss” their findings by just repeating the substance of their findings! However, what follows here is a closer examination the findings and the ARB’s inadequate discussion of those findings. The explanations of the findings actually raise more questions than are answered.

Regarding issue #1. and according to President Barack Obama, the alleged protest before the attack on the Special Mission Benghazi was purportedly caused by spontaneous mob’s emotional reaction to an anti-Islamic video produced in the U.S. However, the ARB’s conclusion, “there was no protest prior to the attacks,” directly contradicts the president’s, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s, UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s, and White House Spokesman Jay Carney’s repeated false statements to the nation blaming the video as the motivation for the attack and the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. What follows are some of the more egregious falsehoods perpetrated by the president and his subordinates.

09/12/2012 – President Obama’s White House Rose Garden Speech to the nation:

“While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”


09/12/2012 – President Obama’s CBS 60 Minutes Interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.”

09/20/12 – President Obama’s response to a question in a Univision town-hall meeting:

“I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

09/25/2012 – President Obama’s Address to United Nations:

“That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”

09/12/12 – Secretary Clinton’s address to the nation:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protests that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.

America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear, there is no justification for this. None.”


09/16/12 – One of UN Ambassador Rice’s five TV talk show appearances:

“Joining us now our ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Ambassador, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.


WALLACE: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The White House says it has nothing to do with the president’s policies.

Let’s watch. Direct Link is HERE.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.


WALLACE: You don’t really believe that?

RICE: Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.”

09/14/12 – White House Spokesman Carney’s response to media question:

“We don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

So, the ARB Report definitively states that the attack did not grow out of a flash mob protest and, furthermore, the report makes absolutely no mention of any anti-Islamic video! Well then, where did this lie come from and when did it materialize? Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports:

“The first reference to the anti-Islam film, initially blamed by the Obama administration for provoking the violent attack in Benghazi, appears to be a retweet of a Russia Today story that was not posted until Sept. 12 at 09:12 a.m. local time. The translation reads, “U.S. ambassador killed in Libya during his country’s consulate in Benghazi – Russia today http://t.co/SvAV0o7T response to the film abuser.”

However, juxtaposed with this anonymous “retweet” from Russia is this USA Today report:

“The White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that an Islamic terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, official e-mails show.

“The e-mails, obtained first by Reuters and later by USA TODAY, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks .The brief e-mails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to the Obama administration.”

As amazing as it seems, Secretary Clinton rejected the al-Qaeda-affiliated social media claim of attack responsibility and the simultaneous, real-time reporting of U.S. diplomats in Libya, that verified the jihadists’ declaration of attack responsibility, in favor of the day-later video-causation assertion from an unidentified Russian social media source! Here is the report of what Clinton said on video:

“Hillary Clinton dismissed the information in the newly released emails which show that the State Department and the NSC were aware that Ansar Al-Sharia was behind the Benghazi consulate attack.

“Clinton sneeringly dismisses it as ‘Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence.’”

The report goes on to observe regarding Clinton’s dismissal of this evidence:

“That might be true for the average person, but when an Islamist terrorist militia linked to Al Qaeda that plays a major role in Benghazi posts something on Facebook while an attack is taking place and appears to know more about it than the State Department does, that is evidence.”


Clearly, Obama owes the American people an explanation why he and his regime personnel lied to them about the circumstances of the attack and the motivation of the jihadist attackers.

Regarding issues #2. and #4., the ARB Report finds that there were “systemic failures,” but that “the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.”

In the report there is no explanation of the role played by the president or the secretary of state. Did the president and secretary have no part to play in the unfolding of the Benghazi fiasco? Was only the system to blame, but no individuals? Well, while it is apparent that the ARB could find no high ranking individuals to blame, that does not mean that Obama and Clinton would not find lower ranking “fall guys” to blame. Third-level State Department personnel, Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Raymond Maxwell, have been pressured to resign in an attempt to appease the American public and deceive them into believing that the “wrong-doers” have been punished. Undoubtedly these bureaucrats were instrumentally involved in the systemic failures, and probably do deserve dismissal; but were they the highest ranking individuals culpable? The report certainly does not answer that question. Only testimony by Clinton before the Congress and an explanatory speech by Obama, followed by open, intense press questioning, can convincingly resolve that issue for the American people.

Regarding issue #3., “there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference” – this is without a doubt the most contentious concern for Americans. Could these Americans in peril have been saved? Obama claimed in a local Denver TV interview he tried:

>Question: “Were they [the Americans in Benghazi] denied requests for help during the attack?”

Answer: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives.

“Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the State Department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that [our] people were safe.”


The ARB Report’s flat assertion, “not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference,” is a totally unsatisfactory explanation!


The ARB Report admits that “mistakes were made,” but discloses that essentially no one made them. The effort is merely a very poor attempt to disguise a cover-up. D-

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired), was stationed in Peshawar, Pakistan, working daily with Pakistani military personnel for more than a year; additionally, he was an Intelligence Officer and an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving in six more foreign countries during a thirty-year military career.


“There are no guns in my house” and why the Gallup Poll takers and the politicians don’t understand the nature of the problem.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

A full-page story appeared today in the Kentucky Enquirer on gun ownership titled: “Guns Here and in America” written by Kimball Perry. It contains a lot of information derived from polls taken over the years by the noted Gallup survey company. The gist of the story was contained in this single paragraph:

Gallup has polled Americans since 1959 about whether they had a gun in their home. When the pollster last asked the question in fall 2011, 45 percent of U.S. households said yes – beneath the high of 50 percent in 1968, but a steady increase from the low of 34 percent in 1996. But the 2011 version of the National Opinion Research Center’s influential General Social Survey showed gun ownership at 32.3 percent of U.S. households, a steady drop from 49.1 percent of households with guns in 1973.

According to the published story in the Enquirer the polls indicate that between 1968, (the year the first gun control laws were passed) 50% of Americans admitted having a gun in their homes, but then by 1996 when the Assault Rifle ban was passed only 34% said they had a gun in their homes. By 2011, the poll says gun ownership dropped even further to 32.3%, “a steady drop from 49.1% of household with guns in 1973.” I went to the Gallup web site to see what else it said on the subject and found this little disclaimer at the bottom of the page, “In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.” No further explanations were given. While that disclaimer may be for a general purpose, I suspect that it simply means that not every answer to the poll takers questions were truthful. The bold truth is that gun ownership has been surging within the last 10 years while gun owners have been increasingly distrustful of the government. Since most survey polls resort to simple Yes or No answers, I have never read of any poll that included, “None of your business” as a choice.

From talking to others about gun ownership and mainly from reading comments posted on the Internet it seems that there is a large number of people who do not trust the government with their personal information and likewise do not trust random phone calls from poll takers. So the polls taken over the years asking people if they own a gun need to have a few additional elements written into their algorithms to be accurate. Such as:

1. How many people hung up the phone when you asked this question?

2. How many people declined to participate in the telephone survey all together?

3. How many people were aware that the survey was about gun ownership before they were asked any questions?

4. How many people actually gave honest answers?

The earliest doubt concerning government knowledge of private gun ownership began during the Clinton administration when the so-called Assault Weapon ban was passed. Law abiding citizens know that they are no threat to public safety and they also know that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on guns and would never register them if that became a requirement. The old adage: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is a perfect example. The numbers of people who were concerned over government confiscation of privately owned guns dramatically increased following 9-11 and the passage of The Patriot Act, which became the first attack on our Bill of Rights. When the Democrats nominated Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and his background involvement with communists and terrorists became public knowledge, gun owners began to dread the day when he got elected. Even though Obama often said he supported the Second Amendment, most conservatives did not believe him. For many years there has been a widespread belief that America would one day follow the path to totalitarian dictatorship and like past history elsewhere the first act would be the disarming of our citizens. Because of these fears, I strongly believe that many, if not most, gun owners would be very reluctant to tell anyone except another gun owner about their guns. Regarding the gathering of information on gun ownership, with the advent of electronic record keeping and government intrusion into health care, people are talking about a rather uncomfortable question they have recently been asked by their family doctors: Do you have a gun in your house? It is widely known that the Federal government will soon, if not now, be able to access your personal medical records and those questions and answers recorded by your doctor are becoming very suspicious. So once again, if people are forewarned to look out for it, they will not be revealing anything.

While it is true that most guns being purchased today are being bought by people who already own guns, there are still many first-time gun buyers because more and more people are realizing that something terrible is about to happen. These people are not just the so-called Survivalists that stock up a year’s worth of food or go off the grid, they are ordinary people who read the news every day. So one more question that the poll takers haven’t asked is: Have you just bought your first gun? I think that in light of the surge in gun purchases in the last four years that the honest answer to that is quite significant. It wasn’t without some biting truth that our Marxist/Socialist leader Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the distinction of The Best Gun Salesman of the Year.

The first salvo on the anticipated move to confiscate guns was reported yesterday on the web site Townhall. It has been widely suspected that more Democrats across the country will be echoing similar sentiments.

Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is getting his gun control proposals ready and they’re looking pretty unconstitutional.

He added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Barack Hussein Obama, while lying about his support for the Second Amendment, has been very supportive of the upcoming United Nations Small Arms Treaty that he is expected to try and ram through the U.S. Senate for approval. Obama needs this U.N. treaty so he can absolve himself of the guilt of being personally responsible for disarming our citizens. All he was looking for was an excuse to do so and the tragic events last week at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was just what he needed. If he is unable to get 2/3 of the Senate to approve the treaty he may well try to implement some form of gun control through one of his favorite Executive Orders. Obama has already declared that Congress seems to be an impediment to his legislation demands and he would like to bypass them completely.

The new polls being taken now on the public approval of gun control will come in the midst of the emotional onslaught being broadcast on a daily basis by the leftist news media. The purpose of the polls is to influence the Congress in their moment of passion so they will likely contain twisted and biased results. After all, if you don’t ask the right questions you won’t get the right answers, if anyone wants to answer truthfully. All of this following the recent affirmations by the U.S. Supreme Court on the rights of citizens in America to own firearms would seem very contradictory. Virtually nothing is being said about the cases supported by the ACLU on the so-called “rights” of mentally ill people to be kept out of mental hospitals or off some registration lists that would be checked before a gun purchase is made. And while some areas are discussing placing a police officer in every school, a very expensive proposal that most districts could not afford, little else is being said about have some designated school employees trained and armed with a gun as a last resort. That suggestion most likely contradicts the phobia most academics have about guns and zero-tolerance policies.

Beware of the false prophets from the NRA.

Yesterday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre rejected calls for more gun restrictions, and instead stated that “gun-free” zones made schools less safe by inviting criminals with guns into unprotected areas. He said, quite correctly , “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” But what he did not say was far more important. The influential NRA that has been habitually supportive of numerous Democrats who have promised to support the Second Amendment. The NRA was responsible for giving numerical control of Congress in 2008 to the Democratic Party through their endorsements of 53 candidates. Read more here. They tried again in 2010 but by then the TEA Party movement limited the NRA success to only 21 Democrats. Two years ago I discovered that within the past history of the NRA there have been times when the NRA publicly stated support for various kinds of gun control. I wrote here in August 2010 about a web site that contains a complete reprint of the March 1968 issue of American Rifleman, the official publication of the NRA, that confirmed this. Read my blog post:

Friday, August 13, 2010

The short history of the NRA: When you dance with the Devil you will get burned.

A few days ago while researching the gun control issue and the involvement of the NRA I came across a web site that had reprinted the entire article from the March 1968 issue of the American Rifleman. The source for this reprint is:
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.COM http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3247

Here are some highlights from the American Rifleman, March 1968 issue article to perk your interest:

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns…”
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

“The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition…”
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

The NRA is a great supporter of the Second Amendment and they have sponsored many useful laws such as The Castle Doctrine, but many people suspect that one goal of the NRA is that in the event of the national registration of all firearms, they would like to see themselves designated as the exclusive proprietors of every local gun club where gun owners would be required to store their guns if they were prohibited from being kept their homes. This is, by the way, the policy in Great Britain and I believe it is the fail safe plan of the NRA.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides. I became a Life Member of the NRA in 1968 and elevated to Benefactor level. In 2010 I resigned and am now a Life Member of the Gun Owners of America.


Rupert Murdoch Backs Obama’s Gun Grab

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

An honest account of media misinformation after the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy has to take into account Rupert Murdoch’s tweet about the need to ban “automatic weapons,” when none was used to kill any of the 26 people. Can the chairman of News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, be this ignorant about the nature of gun laws and guns in America?

He asked, “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” He urged Obama to exercise “bold leadership” on the issue.

Deep inside his story about the comments, Gabriel Sherman of New York magazine noted, “Despite Murdoch’s plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza [the killer] used semiautomatics.”

In fact, automatic weapons are not technically illegal but are subject to extensive regulation and are very difficult to obtain.

One interesting aspect of this controversy is that left-leaning reporters such as Dylan Byers of Politico publicized Murdoch’s comments without correcting him. Others followed suit. “Rupert Murdoch demanded tighter gun control in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut,” reported The Huffington Post, without noting that his remarks were inaccurate and the “gun control” he talked about was already in effect.

This is fascinating because, in the past, liberal media have tried to claim that Fox News personnel spew misinformation about current events, leading to a lack of knowledge about important matters of public policy. Here is a case of the owner of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and other properties saying something that is completely erroneous and irrelevant to what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

But why would liberal publications not want people to know that Murdoch was in error? There are several possible explanations:

  • They do not understand gun laws, either, and didn’t realize Murdoch was wrong.
  • They don’t care that Murdoch was wrong and wanted to use his mistaken comment to spread misinformation to the public about the killings.
  • They know Murdoch was wrong but wanted to use his comment to send a message to Fox News Channel hosts and commentators that they should get on the “gun control” bandwagon with their boss.

Some conservative-oriented news sites did correct the media mogul. “Early news reports indicate that automatic weapons were not used in yesterday’s school shooting,” Breitbart News reported, in a brief story about Murdoch’s comments. Indeed, no evidence of automatic weapons being used has turned up. Twitchy Media noted, “Closer attention to the reports coming out of his media properties would have informed Murdoch that automatic weapons weren’t used in today’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.”

Also oblivious to the facts, Malcolm Turnbull, who reportedly knows Murdoch, replied by saying that the politicians would act when pressured by the media and that “I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it.”

This, then, is why the comment is getting so much attention from the left. The political progressives saw it as an effort to send marching orders to the conservative news channel to back Obama’s controversial call for more legislation.

Media Matters, the George Soros-funded left-wing organization, jumped on the comments, contrasting Murdoch’s “Call For [A] Weapons Ban” with how Fox News Channel commentators supposedly were guilty in the past of “Extreme Pro-gun Rhetoric.” The “rhetoric” consisted of comments in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The New York Post, another Murdoch property, has already demonstrated Murdoch’s influence by following his lead and running an editorial on December 18 insisting that Lanza’s semi-automatic rifle somehow functioned like a “fully automatic” weapon. The editorial seemed like an attempt to justify Murdoch’s erroneous comments.

“It is very discouraging that Murdoch thinks that machine guns have anything to do with these attacks,” noted John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime. “There are strong self-defense reasons for people to have semi-automatic weapons.”

In addition to such figures as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Lott has been willing to take on those in the media, especially on CNN, who are guilty of spreading misinformation about the massacre. But he has not been invited to appear on Fox News to rebut gun grabbers like Murdoch.

Referring to Lott’s credentials as a FoxNews.com columnist, Eric Wemple of The Washington Post notes that the Fox News Channel is failing to use its “go-to guy on hand” to counter federal calls for more “gun control” legislation. He said Lott’s “low profile” on FoxNews.com since the killings suggests that the network and its website are “treading carefully” on the subject.

Rather than “treading carefully,” it appears that the Fox News Channel is marching to Murdoch’s directives, as revealed on his Twitter page. Perhaps Lott’s willingness to rebut Murdoch on his blog helps explain why he in particular is not being effectively utilized by the channel.

What’s worse, as Gabriel Sherman has reported, a Lott column about the differences between semiautomatics and so-called military style assault weapons was actually killed by FoxNews.com.

What we are seeing here is a coordinated attempt to use Murdoch’s erroneous comments to further a political left-wing agenda. Murdoch’s employees are capable of understanding that the comments are being exploited for political purposes. But it is quite another thing to say on the air that the boss is wrong and to keep churning out facts that contradict Murdoch’s dubious position.

We appear to be witnessing self-censorship on the part of Fox News, in order to serve Murdoch’s agenda.

Fox News has to be carefully monitored in the weeks ahead to see if the Murdoch comments have a continued impact on the channel and are used to muzzle the case for gun rights as Obama and his other media allies lay the groundwork for further restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The information source many conservatives go to for accurate and informed coverage appears to be going the way of the liberal media.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].