Much like a winning poker player, the strategic and tactical analysis of the Obama campaign’s kind ‘offer’ to institute a Democrat-wide cease fire from taunting Gov. Romney to release 10 years of tax returns–if he would release just three more years of tax returns–revealed a treasure trove of inside ‘intel,’ as to their own outlook of success…and it’s very dim.
These segments of the email offer from Obama campaign manager, Jim Messina, to Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, as reported in a FOXNews article today, captures it all…
So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point: if the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more–neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign.
And, I repeat, the Governor and his campaign can expect in return that we will refrain from questioning whether he has released enough or pressing for more.
And Rhoades’ reply to Messina left no room for interpretation, by slamming the door on the offer without any apparent concern [for the consequences]…
Thanks for the note. It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Governor Romney’s tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters, like putting Americans back to work, fixing the economy and reining in spending.
If Governor Romney’s tax returns are the core message of your campaign, there will be ample time for President Obama to discuss them over the next 81 days.
What would cause them to be so obviously desperate?
First, it is now painfully clear that Team Obama has failed in their attempt to assassinate the character of Gov. Mitt Romney–after spending three months and nearly $100 million–so they must find a ‘silver bullet,’ before Barack Obama is forced to face Mitt Romney and confront his disastrous first-term record during the three upcoming, nationally televised, presidential debates.
Second, their campaign outgo has exceeded their income, even with the ‘Vacancy’ sign hanging outside the door of the Oval Office, because the ‘Campaigner-in-Chief to too busy with his feverish fundraising schedule.
In stark contrast, within a week of announcing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of the now famous ‘Ryan Budget Plan,’ as his Vice Presidential running mate, Team Romney has received over $10 million in campaign contributions, from 124,800 donors–68 percent of whom are brand new–without even trying, according to Joy Lin’s FOXNews article today.
Third, Team Romney is proving to be equally as ‘tech savvy’ with social media, with the campaign reporting today that Romney gained 510,000 Facebook followers and 54,000 Twitter followers, and Ryan exploding with 860,000 and 118,000, proving they have the capacity to bypass the traditional media and message directly to millions of supporters.
Finally, Team Obama takes another slap in the face from a leader in the black community, as the nation’s first elected black governor, Doug Wilder of Virginia, took Vice President Joe Biden to task on national television–for using a [fake] ‘southern accent’ to tell a mostly black audience in Danville, Virginia that [the GOP]…
Wants to unchain Wall Street … then they’re going to put y’all back in chains.
Gov. Wilder, who is a Democrat and a grandson of slaves, echoed indignant Republican claims that Biden’s remarks invoked slavery to ‘insert’ racism into the presidential race, according to an August 15th Associated Press article.
In the final analysis, it appears as though Team Obama is on the road to self-destruction–rather than surrender–and that would serve America and her future just fine.
The story we get repeatedly from the press is that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange received asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because he fears being sent by the British to Sweden to answer sex charges and then eventually being extradited to the U.S. to answer espionage charges here.
It’s true that British Foreign Minister William Hague says the country has a “legal obligation to see Mr. Assange extradited to Sweden.” But there is no confirmation of a U.S. indictment of Assange.
Much of the coverage seems designed to make Assange into a martyr of some kind.
Some members of the press, however, are raising questions. The New York Times noted, “It struck many as odd that Mr. Assange, who shot to fame as a fighter for media freedom, chose Ecuador as a potential refuge. Mr. Correa has presided over a crackdown on journalists there.” It is only odd if one believed the propaganda about Assange being a free speech advocate or “whistleblower” in the first place. On the contrary, he has functioned as an agent of influence for the Russian government.
There is something else odd about this case. There have been numerous reports that the Justice Department has established a secret grand jury to indict Assange under the Espionage Act. But there is no hard evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder ever intended to prosecute him. From the start, while talking tough about a criminal investigation, Holder has also talked about “gaps” in the law that may prevent prosecution.
In the case of the gay Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, the Assange conspirator on trial for treason, the death penalty has been strangely taken off the table. The threat of the death penalty could have been used to get Manning to talk about the involvement of Assange and others in the conspiracy to steal and release classified information.
The Australian newspaper puts Assange and his political motives into some perspective in an editorial that says: “Julian Assange displays blinding hypocrisy trying to hide behind the skirts of Ecuador, which regularly aligns itself at the UN with the likes of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela on issues such as support for Syria’s murderous Assad regime.”
The skirts also included those of his mother, who complained that her son had been living in cramped conditions at the embassy, under psychological stress, and had not been outside to “see the sun.”
The Australian went on, “Were Mr. Assange not so cowardly, he would recognize his best interests would be served not by pompously pursuing the role of martyr but by going to Sweden so sex-assault charges he strenuously denies can be tested. Sweden is not Equatorial Guinea. Nor is it Ecuador, a country whose anti-US President, Rafael Correa, Mr. Assange’s protector, shamelessly misused the courts against journalists after they called him a dictator—action condemned by the UN Human Rights Council and the Washington Post, which wrote of the ‘most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media in the Western Hemisphere.’”
The latter suggests that even liberals in the press seem to be waking up to the true colors of Julian Assange. When will they wake up to the fact that the tough rhetoric coming out of the White House and the Justice Department is getting stale?
Some of the toughest rhetoric came from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during a press briefing on November 29, 2010: “Obviously there is an ongoing criminal investigation about the stealing of and the dissemination of sensitive and classified information.”
He went on to say, in regard to the WikiLeaks disclosures:
“…the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime…”
“WikiLeaks and people that disseminate information to people like this are criminals, first and foremost. And I think that needs to be clear”
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has also talked tough. She recently said, “I believe Mr. Assange has knowingly obtained and disseminated classified information which could cause injury to the United States. He has caused serious harm to U.S. national security, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.”
She sent a letter to Holder on December 2, 2010 making the same argument. Here we are 20 months later.
Isn’t it about time for the media to conclude that the Obama/Holder Justice Department is bluffing and that it has no intention of going after Assange and WikiLeaks?
The Russians and other adversaries or enemies of the United States have benefited immensely from the WikiLeaks disclosures, which included classified information about U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. In return, perhaps as a show of thanks, the Russians gave Assange a TV show, where he interviewed such figures as Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah and U.S. Marxist professor Noam Chomsky.
The Russia Today (RT) show, funded by Moscow, is broadcast into the United States but has not been required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Holder shows the same leniency to such outlets as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Al-Jazeera and Iranian Press TV.
The Russians may have balked at giving Assange sanctuary. But Assange had interviewed Ecuador’s president Correa on his RT television show. The New York Times reported that “when Mr. Assange arrived at the embassy, he issued a statement saying that Mr. Correa had invited him to seek asylum in Ecuador during an interview for Mr. Assange’s TV show on Russia Today, an English-language cable channel financed by the government of Vladimir V. Putin.”
This means the Russian government, which not only funds but controls the channel, facilitated the deal.
The government of Ecuador is a member of the Hugo Chavez axis of nations that serves the interests of Russia, Cuba, and Iran in Latin America. Former CIA officer Brian Latell points out that the Venezuelan intelligence service functions as an arm of Cuba’s intelligence service, the DGI.
At this point, even the tough rhetoric is disappearing from the official statements. CNN Reports that U.S. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd on Thursday offered “no comment on Julian Assange or the dispute over his asylum between Ecuadorian and UK authorities.” This does not sound like a Justice Department eager or willing to bring Assange to justice.
The reason may be that President Obama’s base, including Code Pink and other such groups, are part of the “Free Bradley Manning” coalition who also believe that Assange is a hero. Code Pink worked with and promoted CIA defector Philip Agee, an identified Cuban DGI and Soviet KGB agent.
As we have reported before, the far-left has argued that the Espionage Act, under which an indictment could be brought, is unconstitutional. This argument is coming, however, from Robert Meeropol, founder and executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children. His parents, atomic spies and communists Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were charged, tried and executed after being found guilty of violating the law.
The advisory board of the Rosenberg Fund includes Angela Davis, the former Communist Party USA official who beat a murder rap; former Rep. Ron Dellums, the Oakland Democrat who once served as a member of the House Intelligence Committee; communist folksinger Pete Seeger; Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and even Leonard Peltier, the American Indian activist now in prison for murdering two FBI agents.
This is the crowd Holder doesn’t want to upset with an indictment of Assange.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
Some acknowledge the idea of the Big Bang Theory where at some point, right after and immediately following the nothing, there was something. Subsequently every thing that was, started moving away from that point and eventually became what is. I think there is more going on here than we have previously been led to believe.
Along the way, my guess is, some of the things moved through places where, if they had stopped, there would be some thing there now, but alas, they kept going into the ever colder and darker corners of the Big where they became, and remain, cold and dark things.
Other things didn’t go quite so far and are emblazoned with light and heat so intense that no thing could start and any thing that did while on that journey is now dust and ash. Real hot dust and ash.
So let’s consider a thing that found it’s balance between the extremes of cold and heat, light and darkness.
There are only a few facts to bear witness to this, but a hypothesis would suggest the earth thing may be an example of this place of balance.
So, with the passing of many millenia, this balance allowed for some chemistry to work in rudimentary conditions and finally some thing moved around in a puddle of primordial goo well enough to survive and evolve. Maybe. I only say maybe because current evidence for me is that there is no goo under my feet, primordial or otherwise.
My caveat here is that I’m not degreed in any of the sciences, so I have no fore-knowledge of the scientific terms nor the training to fundamentally decide how all this really went. I only postulate on what is written in much literature, for and against I might add, all of which is written by those professorial harbingers of science history that I may choose to listen to and read so as to be educated to some level of understanding.
Let us continue….
As long as various things remained in the pool of goo, the condition of things remained basically unchanged except that some things eventually became other things and then there were more things, all different but somehow related. But the safety of home and hearth were left behind the first time one of those ancestor things left the pool and moved out onto a solid footing. What happened after that first step is the subject of libraries full of books and will not be added to here.
This matter is about the marks and impressions left behind as tracks and trails on the rock, in the sand and through the fertile earth over which these things moved. For I could be convinced, as science has done so well to fill me with facts and fiction, there may come a time where some scientist will postulate that as the things moved and grew and changed and went from what they were to what they are, the trails and the gouges in the rock, sand and fertile earth became permanent ruts behind them.
Ruts, well worn in time by various crawly walky things, large and small alike, became paths. a way to, or from, somewhere. Paths then allowed for more ordered movement and even faster escapes from unfriendly things, and maybe even a shorter route to water or food, or back to home, from whence they came.
As all these things became more diverse and numerous, more paths came into existence or, to follow the theory, there came to be so many paths that some went into low use and disrepair and were taken over again by other things, while other paths, under more frequent use, became roads.
Over great expanses of time these all were worn fairly smooth. The loose stone and rock always pushed to the side as the increase in things travelling widened path and road alike. Rocks and stone piled up on the edges and when there was enough and the climate, gravity and mixture of soil and moisture was sufficient, there was the basis for foundations.
Other stone and rock material building up near stream and river and earthen gorge must have become bridges. Bridges had to jump the expanse where path and road would not traverse. The age old act of finding the nearest tree that had fallen across a stream or the slightly more time consuming effort of going around the problem wasn’t suitable to the growing masses of things moving about.
Also during these multiples of millenia, it must be true that a great onset of storms, wind and lightning damaged and knocked down much of the growing things and along with the regular cycle of life produced a lot of debris. The dead fallen limbs and even trees themselves crashed down onto these stone and rock foundations and became crude structures. I know this because I have seen with my own eyes, scientists un-earthing evidence of this wood and rock phenomenon over the great land masses.
There must be some credibility to this observation. To not recognize and accept the natural progression of events as they unfolded over time is to show ignorance, a lack of learning and understanding. One must either witness what has happened or understand the proper order of events that create their own history. No thing would allow anyone to otherwise be deluded that they had a hand in any of it.
Mankind came onto the scene so late in the era of the progress of things that not one has any claim to what has gone before, or has any right to, for, as someone of great prominence has quipped, ‘you didn’t build that’.
From: Special Operations Speaks
Contact: Alex Rosenwald
Re: SOS memo to Bob Beckel [email protected]
Special Operations Speaks to Bob Beckel:
Say it to my face.
Yesterday, Fox News’ “The Five” ran a segment on the military members who are taking action against President Barack Obama and his administration for their deliberate, continuing national-security leaks that are endangering the lives of the military men and women who serve and protect the United States of America. In that segment, liberal smear artist Bob Beckel defended the Obama White House’s intentional release of highly sensitive and highly classified security information:
“The idea to suggest that the President of the United States would leak intelligence information, jeopardizing people in the field is close to treason,” Beckel said. “If I were them – I assume they are out of the military now – they ought to take their benefits and go home.”
As honorably discharged and retired veterans of the Special Operations communities of all the Armed Forces and their supporters, whose mission in forming Special Operations Speaks is to illuminate the failed operational security environment of the current presidential administration, we find Bob Beckel’s commentary slanderous, insulting and appalling.
Yes Bob, we are indeed “out” of military uniform, but as private citizens in civilian mufti, we are no less dedicated to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States than we were when we first swore to do so when we entered military service and then honorably served our nation. Bob, we are home and one of the “benefits” we enjoy, like you, is freedom of speech under the First Amendment of our sacred Constitution.
To essentially accuse retired Special Operators like ourselves – who dutifully and proudly committed our lives to our country’s service – of treason is to effectively spit upon those military men and women and their families who defended and often died to preserve Beckel’s liberty to say such a heinous thing in the first place. Beckel’s comments are not just overtly disrespectful; they are transparently disdainful of the sacrifices that the American military and their loved ones have made on his behalf.
Fox News, in its misguided attempt to be fair and balanced, has defaulted on its obligation to its audience by continuing to tolerate Beckel’s twisted and bloviated commentary. As such, we demand that Beckel be dismissed forthwith and apologize for his remarks.
On the plus side, Beckel’s comments, however, have only strengthened the resolve of Special Operations Speaks and like military groups who stand united in a mission to stop the White House leaks for personal political gain. To use Beckel’s own comparison, if Beckel was worried about the Swift Boats in 2004, then the combined efforts of Special Operations Speaks, OPSEC and other like-minded Special Operations fraternal organizations will seem like “Swiftboating on Steroids” during this critical 2012 presidential election. Be afraid Bob . . . be very afraid.
As such, Special Operations Speaks will continue speaking out against the Obama White House’s intentional release of national-security information for political gain, and we will not allow yellow hacks like Bob Beckel to deter us from restoring government accountability and a return to the guiding principles upon which our Republic was founded.
To schedule interviews with Dick Brauer or Larry Bailey, co-founders of Special Operations Speaks (SOS), contact Alex Rosenwald at (571) 282-7954 or [email protected].
Within seconds of Romney’s announcement that Ryan would be his running mate, the chatter started. Democrats expressed delight, because they see Ryan’s stance on Medicare as one they can use to portray Romney and Ryan as Satan incarnate. A couple of years ago, they showed Ryan pushing grandma’s wheelchair off the cliff. This year, I’m sure that they’re going to show him detonating the mushroom-shaped cloud that immolates every American over 50 . . . or is it 40? Or maybe 30?
What’s funny, though, is that each person who worries about some deficit in the Ryan pick comes back with an offering to show some demographic that nobody thought about, but that Ryan can bring into the Republican fold. Right now, Republicans remind me of the famous Monty Python Life of Brian skit, with a leader expressing horror about Roman rule, and the followers reminding him that it’s not all bad. For those of you unfamiliar with that scene (is there anybody unfamiliar with that scene), the leader of the People’s Front of Judea rhetorically, and with great disdain, asks his follows what the Romans have ever done for them, only to learn that his followers are able to recognize Roman virtues:
In no particular order, here are some of the things Paul Ryan, by appearing on the ticket, will end up doing for us, American conservatives:
1. As the famous six-minute video shows, Ryan has already stared Obama down once, when he wiped out Obama’s pie-in-sky rhetoric by agreeing with Obama’s goals and then showing irrefutably that the ObamaCare numbers couldn’t possibly add up:
In our non-Council category, the winner was an old Council Favorite, Daniel Greenfield AKA Sultan Knish with The Most Divisive Campaign in American History submitted by Joshuapundit. The title pretty much sums up what it’s about… and while I’m at it, a hat tip to my pal Terresa over at The Noisy Room for sending it my way.
Okay, okay, here are this week’s full results. Simply Jews was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty:
See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!
I suggest our patriots not worry so much about SWATing and more about this. And I suggest reading both excerpted articles in their entirety.
Today, in his blog Northeast Intelligence Network and at Canada Free Press, Doug Hagmann reported that he knows of numerous instances where outspokenly Christian, patriotic Americans critical of the dangers of increased globalism and authoritarianism, have begun to be treated as mentally ill – by law enforcement and physicians – officially.
One case cited in particular is that of Jason Ergoff, aged 28, of Scranton, Pennsylvania. We will let Mr. Hagmann tell the story before commenting further:
If you are an outspoken Christian in America, you need to be concerned. If you are an outspoken Christian in America who happens to be a gun owner, you need to be very concerned. And if you are a Christian gun owner who disagrees with the Progressive anti-Christian agenda in America and have a platform to inform others, you better believe that you are under intense scrutiny.
This is all the more concerning when coupled with Tuesday’s analysis of just this very topic being seriously discussed among government related intelligentsia, by Susanne Posel, at Occupy Corporatism(“corporatism” being another term for ministerial, fascistic socialism, also called crony capitalism, also called by proponents during the times of Woodrow Wilson and his idea man, Edward House, the administrative state – it is a bipartisan practice in America – it is what is going on in post-communist Russia and China, in post Cold War Europe, in North and South America and pretty much, all around the world, along with central banking, by some conspira-I-mean-coincidence).
In her disciplined, well documented article, Ms. Posel chiefly relates the “consciousness raising” for this subversion to the Aurora theater and Sikh temple shootings. She also describes how implementation of such tyranny is available to the treachery built into ObamaCare (or, as I call it, RombamaCare, in homage to both of its principle proponents: the serial liar who testbed implemented it in Massachusetts, as well as Agenda 21, and who now says he will reverse the former after propounding it nationwide, no mention that I’ve heard about the latter, along with the serial liar who of course signed the nationwide bill, claiming it would reduce overall medical expenses, not harm the Medicare program, and not include death panel rationing, nor any increased taxes).
Here is the Posel article, greatly worth reading, top to bottom.
The medical industry in conjunction with Big Pharma want to classify the right to keep and bear arms as a mental disorder in another power grab to circumvent and eventually destroy our Constitutional 2nd Amendment.
More and more doctors are forcing the idea that we need a national healthcare approach to the problem that the recent shootings provide. While tobacco and alcohol is regulated, why not include the right to bear arms?
The staged shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are being used by some scientists to declare gun violence be treated like any other mental disease – and perhaps by popping a pill, American citizens would forget to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights.
Dr. Stephen Hargarten of the Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin claims : “What I’m struggling with is: Is this the new social norm? This is what we’re going to have to live with if we have more personal access to firearms. We have a public health issue to discuss. Do we wait for the next outbreak or is there something we can do to prevent it.”
After reading these articles, I suggest listening again to putative president Obama’s comments, the day after the Sikh temple shooting. Here he speaks of such shootings as continuing events. How would he be able to do that? And he calls for government to do something about them. What might those things be?
Here is what he, by his gestures, cadence, emphasis, and tone clearly wanted to get around to saying:
I think all of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching and to examine additional ways we can reduce violence.
So, I guess he is on the spot. Either “these” shootings will continue to happen, or Obama will be, well, wrong in his warning. (Don’t bother to be worried here about serial killers who write notes to the effect of, “Stop me before I kill again!”)
“mental hospital door,” from scrapetv.com
Just whose souls do you want to search, Mr. Obama, and what “ways” are you proposing be examined? Interesting.
First, it seems that people have an over-simplistic view of how things are being planned by the people who are most influential to Obama, or by those who are in the position to help Obama stay in office. Their playbook is full of asymmetrical tactics, but suitably transparent if one understands what’s at stake.
According to my source, it is the very existence of our country and way of life is at stake. Many people who are currently in positions of power, whether elected or appointed, have the same ideological goals of Barack Hussein Obama. Like Obama, they want to transform the country, and will use every tactic possible to do so. They believe that under Obama, they finally have the perfect opportunity to implement the socialism-to-communism agenda in America. They hate, and I mean hate the democratic system of government and loathe capitalism. They are the “red diaper babies” of the 1960’s who have gained power through the very process they seek to destroy.
They feel that they have lived their entire lives for this time in history, when they can change America on every level. They feel that they need more time, however, to fully achieve their objectives. My source told me that something(s) went “sideways” for Obama, which created the need for more time, or a second term.
According to my source, there were some internal problems within the Department of Homeland Security, and some external problems outside of that venue as well that slowed the process. My source stated that the delays caused a lot of anger among those at a higher level, and that anger or impatience trickled down through the ranks at DHS.
On the day of the shooting at the Sikh Temple, however, my source stated that there were many meetings and contacts between Obama’s people, especially from Valerie Jarrett, that involved Janet Napolitano and the FBI director. According to my source, Jarrett and others within Obama’s inner circle were actually coordinating how the information about the shooting was to be handled. Imagine that! Obama’s closest advisor was actually involved with almost every aspect of a local shooting by first designating it as an act of domestic terrorism. As soon as they were made aware that the shooting took place at a Sikh Temple and had the identity of the shooter, they made sure that the federal agents took over the crime scene so the flow of information could be controlled. “There was a sickening sense of perverted excitement by Obama’s closest advisors, based on what I heard at my level,” said my source. “That twist approach to a terrible event, it actually p-ssed some [higher ranking DHS officials] off,” he said to me. He also said that he heard one high ranking source within DHS tell someone else that “we can’t let this one get away from us,” a reference to the shooting.
So, they obviously prefer to exploit situations like the shooting in Wisconsin to attack our freedoms granted under the Constitution, but have no moral objection to creating their own crises, if necessary, to further their objectives. In part, that’s where the “false-flag” scenario originated.
My source was very emphatic then and now that the planning that is being done is “fluid,” or always being revised and updated to exploit whatever situations might arise.
It is the shared opinion around the Bound that just a little citing of mysterious sources now and then can be quite enough and Doug does more than a little of that. Nevertheless, what is the picture that begins to develop from the “known knowns” as well as the other four boxes of the known/unknown possibilities?
How about this one?
The Marxofascist elements controlling much of America’s institutions of influence (including Mitt Romney or not, one may think, but definitely including Barack Obama) are again testing the waters according to what seems to be a strategic plan. The plan shown here includes the labeling of “gun toting Christians” as mental patients, as in the days of the Stalin-through-Brezhnev Soviets.
And what do we get, when we attach to this, the recent news of militarism including:
recent legislation providing for national confiscation of nearly anything, including food, water, and… people, simply by the abrogated power of calling out, as in a child’s game, “national emergency!” or “suspected terrorist!”
What are we getting indeed? And who is talking about it, in our ranks of elected office, or those now campaigning?
Those engaged in this treachery and institutional terrorism may frighten some away from speaking out or owning guns. Others understand that our First Amendment is there for the work we must do in order to keep from having to implement the Second Amendment, but both are there for the protection of not only our “right,” but our “duty” to throw off despotry, according to our originating national charter, the Declaration of Independence.
Personally, well, I have been speaking out, as Gulag Bound’s banner implores – and that certainly includes any “what He saids” about Jesus Christ. Since the shooting at the Dark Knight movie though, I agree with Catwoman’s personal reflection about armament. I also plan to take advantage of the new conceal and carry legislation signed by Governor Scott Walker – and what I may have locked away in my home is left to the imagination.