Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Verne's USA DOT COM blog & FACEBOOK are doing great.

You are posting, commenting, and liking as USA Dot Com — Change to Verne Strickland
  • Who You Reached (Demographics and Location)
Gender and Age?
Female 30.3% 3.9% 2.9% 4.9% 6.9% 7.2% 4.5%
13-17   18-24 25-34 35-    44 45-54 55-   64 65+
Male 68.6% 9.2% 6.9% 10.9% 16.8% 15% 9.8%
  • Countries?
    3,584
    United States of America
    3
    United Kingdom
    1
    Puerto Rico
    1
    Netherlands
    1
    Chile
    1
    Canada
    1
    South Africa
  • Cities?
    30
    New York, NY
    24
    Los Angeles, CA
    23
    Las Vegas, NV
    23
    Chicago, IL
    20
    Miami, FL
    19
    Milwaukee, WI
    18
    Houston, TX
  • Languages?
    3,403
    English (US)
    80
    English (UK)
    67
    Spanish
    11
    Spanish (Spain)
    6
    Portuguese (Brazil)
    6
    French (France)
    3
    English (Pirate)

OLD PEOPLE: BEWARE. OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN FOR YOU IS AN EARLY DEATH WARRANT!

OBAMACARE OFFERS OLD PEOPLE . . . AN EARLY DEATH WARRANT!




If you are not an “Old Gal” or “Old Guy,” think of those in ...

WE ARE RESEARCHING THIS STORY. IT WILL BE POSTED SOON. THANK YOU. VERNE STRICKLAND.

Domestic Drone Surveillance -- "CAUSE DU JOUR" of some nervous Americans. Lighten up!

Verne Strickland / February 5, 2013

Domestic surveillance drones have apparently become the cause du jour for a clutch of Americans who react with shock and disdain at use of the technology here.

It's a knee-jerk reaction, and much of the argument against drones seems sophomoric, alarmist and reactionary.

What I am going to offer here is sure to coax a chorus of rabid criticism against me. No problem. I've survived that before.

I'm a gun guy, a hawk, a promoter of American exceptionalism, and of a strong U.S. military, and always have been. I don't deny that much of my philosophy in that regard was taught me by the late patriot and statesman U.S. Senator Jesse A. Helms. As a matter of fact, I am proud to claim that connection to the gritty North Carolina, who told me once -- "I never won a public approval poll, and I never lost an election."

God bless the legacy and memory of our Jesse Helms.



"Senator No" prided himself in what that derisive description revealed when we saw the other side of that coin. If he was against deficit spending, he was for fiscal sanity. If he was for states' rights, he was against a behemoth federal bureaucracy. If he was against the United Nations, he was for an America free to make its own way in support of Democracy. And so on. On the other side of "Senator No" was "Senator Yes". He was revered worldwide for his iron-clad principles and high character. One of a kind.

Senator Helms was falsely criticized for paranoia, sometimes saying, "There is much to be paranoid about." As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he fiercely guarded the reputation and efficiency of our intelligence communities -- the vanguard of our defenses in the "shadow wars" of espionage and terrorism.  Since his era, and on the "watch" of President Obama, we have seen and acknowledged the decline and implosion of our clandestine services -- CIA, FBI, and like agencies. Conservative Helms was spot-on here. Liberal and questionable patriot Obama was dead wrong, and still is.

This whole piece is not presented in tribute to Jesse Helms. But this link between him and drones is buttressed by his memory, his solid reasoning, his 100 percent belief in his America.And his understanding of  the work and world of spies.

So where are we going with this? I've seen several hints in all this incendiary and hysterical ballyhoo about domestic surveillance drones to know I am looking at fairly transparent international propaganda planted on our networks and in the press.

Why is it there? The picture painted is one of "Big Brother" U.S. government drones prying into the everyday lives of innocent Americans and watching every move we make. That is a great big wad of anti-American baloney sausage. And I won't eat it.

I have followed with growing impatience the spooked-out histrionics of Americans who are so upset over drone use here. These people are not unpatriotic. I just think they have the whole business figured out wrong.

And I am suspicious of their selective indignation over this surveillance technology.

I'll wager that the overwhelming majority of anti-drone radicals have never complained about cities (like Wilmington) which are adding safety lighting to sidewalks and parking lots. Recently we had an innocent young man murdered by pistol thugs near the Historic USO Club building. More powerful lighting is in the plans there. Does that make anyone nervous? Only the robbers, killers and drug peddlers.

I live downtown, and it gives me a sense of  heightened security when I hear our WPD helichopper overhead, usually in response to a 911 about a crime committed, and a criminal on the loose. Many of these enemies of a safe city have been corralled and put in the slammer, convicted, and sent to prison. Good riddance. Anybody want to ground these surveillance aircraft?




Our city is networked now with street-level crime-fighting surveillance cameras which are effective in making would-be criminals nervous, and preventing many crimes which would otherwise have been committed. Who's in favor of trashing this important crime-fighting equipment? Huh?

Look around you -- anywhere. You'll see, and benefit from, technology that keeps you safer than you would be without it. Just one example -- the blinking signals at the railroad intersections that warn us of oncoming trains. Your approaching vehicle triggers them. You stop. You live. Who gets nervous over that?

Well, as usual, I have gone far afield on this mainline sermon. I have given plenty of evidence that drones -- which do exactly what these other electronic devices do, only better -- are vital to the health, security and safety of our Cape Fear Region. But our selective indignation zones in on drones. Doesn't make sense.

Finally? I'll bet you enjoy GOOGLE EARTH, an astounding surveillance system which brings the whole world to our computers. I have seen their fancy wide-angle camera systems around Wilmington shooting updated material. One guy (not in Wilmington) claimed his privacy was invaded when he was caught urinating in somebody's yard. Was that you? That satellite system is so highly sophisticated that the North Koreans complain that it is exposing their missile-launching silos and causing them considerable embarrassment. Got a problem with that?

All of the machinations over drones is misplaced. And it plays into the hands of governments and ideologies which want to work harm for America. Just tonight, there was a hyped-up story on complaints around the U.S. of the evils of surveillance drones.

Bull Pie! Know what this is really all about? This is expertly generated and publicized propaganda placed in the public eye, depicting American "concern" and fear over the "eye in the sky". If they can stampede our citizens into deploring and complaining about our drones, our enemies -- communists, socialists, radical Islamists, Majia, and others without names -- they will dampen enthusiasm for systems that are our own, working for us, working against mobsters and jihadists, and perhaps create uneasiness about drone application.

Recall President Reagan's brilliant "Space Missile Shield" planned as an umbrella of protection from ICBMs? This was vehemently derided by liberals in the U.S. press as "Star Wars", and this propaganda was effective in slowing its development. It was planted by Russian propaganda professionals. In more recent years, we have seen another initiative along these lines. Russia's Medvedev bristled and complained. If the Russians shake their nuclear arsenals in mock anger, we're on the right track. 

There's lots more to be said about this drone issue. But I cranked this out in a hurry. I'll do a better job later. But just let up a bit, guys and gals. Please. Let's remember who the enemy is.



Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.
The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

The resolution passed by a 3-2 vote and was brought to the city council by activist David Swanson and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group based in the city. The measure also endorses a proposed two-year moratorium on drones in Virginia.
Councilmember Dede Smith, who voted in favor of the bill, says that drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."
"If we don't get out ahead of it to establish some guidelines for how drones are used, they will be used in a very invasive way and we'll be left to try and pick up the pieces," she says.

VS: If Councilmember Smith hands off our drone surveillance to crooks and communists, she may actually be one of the pieces.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Another potential school shooting tragedy avoided -- by an armed guard




Verne Strickland Blogmaster / February 4, 2013




 02-01-2013 5:10 pm - Bobby Eberle - The Loft

So here's the news story that those on the left don't want you to hear. Whenever someone goes crazy or someone with evil intentions starts shooting, the result is usually tragic, and the reaction of the left is to disarm the population. However, at an Atlanta middle school, after one child was shot, the shooting came to an end... because of an armed guard.

That's right. There was not a mass killing spree in Atlanta on Thursday, but there could have been. We'll never know. And thankfully so, because an armed guard stepped in.

As reported by USA Today, "A 14-year-old student was shot at an Atlanta middle school Thursday afternoon, and another student was taken into custody, police said."

An armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the 1:50 p.m. shooting in a courtyard at the Price Middle School in southeast Atlanta.

Atlanta Public Schools public information officer Steve Alford said the teen's wound was more toward the back of the neck, WXIA-TV reported.

An armed off-duty Atlanta police officer who works at the school subdued the shooter and had him drop his weapon, Police Chief George Turner said.

Several shots were fired, Turner added. He did not identify the gun.

It appears that the shooting could have been gang related, but here's the point. Rather than having a shooter run amok, this school had an armed guard. Rather than disarming law-abiding Americans, shouldn't the real focus be on providing a safe and secure environment for our kids?

Barack Obama's children go to a school with armed guards, but that's not acceptable for the rest of America? If children are really the focus, then let's protect them. These so-called "gun free" zones do nothing but invite violence. It's like putting up a sign that reads, "Come in. Stop by. Rob or shoot this place. Everyone is unarmed."

--------------------------------
SOURCE: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/02/01/another-potential-
school-tragedy-avoided-by-armed-guard/?subscriber=1

There are too many guns on the streets in the hands of criminals and too few in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

  • TIM LAUR, FRIEND AND CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
    The police dept. in my city had to lay off personnel due to budget cuts. The Sheriff was on the news saying, you ned to be more pro-active in defending yourself against criminals, calling 911 will not help when the response time is 4 minutes, and someone is holding you at gunpoint Now.There are too many guns on the streets in hands of criminals and not enough in the hands of law-abiding citizens. There is no problem whatsoever with a law abiding citizen packing a concealed weapon. that has just never been an issue. BUT THEN: the mayor gets on the news as cutting down the sheriff, saying things like 'We don't need a city full of Dirty Harrys running around killing people. So What does the mayor expect the sheriff to do? tell everyone to call 911? the manpower cuts have doubled the response time. Like I said, there just are not any problems with law abiders carrying heat. But there are a lot of dangerous situations that have been averted by same.

     















  • VERNE STRICKLAND -- USA Dot Com We run around in circles, ignoring the only clear answer. Good citizens will not misuse their guns (few at least.) Nor will the police and other professional keepers of the law (but rarely.) Then the rest of the guns are in the hands of aggressive people with no regard for the law -- many criminals who have not yet been imprisoned. They kill every day. Want to wrest the guns from them? That will only be by force of arms. Or perhaps we could "buy" the guns back? Tried and failed. Finally there are the masses -- protectors of the Second Amendment. Are we talking about insurrection? We can let the fuse burn down. What then? Violence and a round-up of those who respond by resisting (opening fire.) Are we ready for this? I honestly couldn't say. But it's clear that decisive action is called for, with a clear show of force by free-thinking Americans. I think we'll choose inaction. Until the inevitable is the last choice left.


  • USA Dot Com TIM: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS -- IT IS STREET-LEVEL EVIDENCE OF WHAT WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS SO CLEAR THAT IT'S CRIMINAL FOR OUR "LEADERS" TO BE UNAWARE OF IT. MY BELIEF IS THEY DON'T WANT THIS GUN MADNESS SOLVED. YOU'VE GOT THE MESSAGE WE NEED TO GET OUT!

The Problem(s) of Women in Combat -- Part 3

The Problem(s) of Women in Combat – Part 3

by Jude Eden, Jane of Trades
The Invisible War is a 2012 documentary showing the shocking prevalence of sexual assault in the military, and worse, the cover-ups that tend to follow.  The rate of assaults against women is completely unacceptable as it is.  We should not put women in infantry and special forces where the risk will be even great to them because there is less supervision, more pressure, and everyone does everything together and in front of each other.  It will be totally destructive of women and combat readiness both.
theinvisiblewarAccording to the documentary which sites government studies, 20% of women in the military have been assaulted, fifteen thousand in 2011 alone.  They estimate half a million women have been assaulted over the years.  The testimonies of rape victims are horrendous.  But it shows that neither the boot camps, nor the deployment training, nor the Feminist theories on women’s equality we’ve been fed since the mid-sixties equipped these rape victims to fight off the men who raped them, or to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.  Besides exposing a very dark problem in the military branches, what The Invisible War shows without intending to is that breaking down the age-old standards of behavior and of separating women from men doesn’t empower them – it makes them more vulnerable to attack.  This is the truth the Feminists don’t want you to know.  They’ve been lying about it for the past fifty years.
Women have served in the military since World War I, beginning with separate units for women in nursing and administrative roles that “freed the men to fight.”  Today everything is integrated: We train together, eat together, we socialize and often drink together (one of the common avoidable circumstances that leads to rape), and single servicemen and women sleep in the same barracks together.  These all become high-risk activities for a woman, as the documentary shows.  Some were raped while on duty, or in the offices of their attackers.  Some were having a few drinks, bonding with their fellows who in some cases drugged them.  Where all that stands between a woman and an attacker is a locked door, we’re already too late.  And in special forces in the combat zone, there aren’t even any doors to lock.
We’re putting the sexes together as if eros and human passion don’t exist.  All the steps that for thousands of years have been in place to protect women have been destroyed by Feminists who see these protections and standards as oppression.  They are in fact the opposite.  It takes a village to protect women – with both men and women holding each other to high standards of behavior.  The differences in how we treat the sexes not only exist, they are essential.  We don’t expect women to be treated like men – that would be barbaric.  We don’t expect men to be treated like women - that would be pathetic.  In the age of “friends with benefits” and “dress like a slut” day, everybody instinctively knows that how a woman dresses affects men.  They can’t turn it off.  That’s why dress and other behaviors in our own control matter.  The Feminist’s assumption that we can presto-chango transform our natures is absurd, and when tested is proven false.  They give themselves the lie by adding double standards – women can be sluts but you have to respect them as if they were chaste, women can do what men can do except you need to gender-norm the testing standards to manufacture equal results.  There’s no way they can create sexless uniformity among men and women, so they have to propagate a huge deception.  They falsely frame the issue as one of civil rights and liberation, making it all but impossible to discuss the real issues.
Anu Bhagwati, a female veteran advocating for women in combat roles, was in this documentary giving “expert” testimony.  Even knowing the horrifying rates of assault, she wants women in elite units where there is no separation of the sexes, where there is not just less, but no protection of women.  Put the sexes in close quarters, under pressure, tell them their biology is artificial and their previous sense of decency something to just get over.  Anyone who doesn’t want to share their junk with the opposite sex (the spouses are cringing), is just a prude trapped in a bygone age.  Martha McSally continually claims common decency standards are nothing, and that the lack thereof doesn’t hurt unit cohesion at all.  The media claim outrage at the prevalence of violent rape in the military.  Yet in the combat roles debate, rape is nothing.  The female proponent in this debate asserts that if women are willing to risk capture and rape by enemy combatants, they should be allowed to do so.  Just another choice.  Would she say the same to women joining the military in the first place?  Big Lies, perpetrated by big-time Feminists.
The pressure of combat missions is already unbelievably high.  What if an assault happens the day of a mission?  We know there’s at least a 20% risk.  Suddenly there are opposing needs – to complete the mission and to deal with the assault.  If reported, the command acting rightly would have to destroy the mission by taking both rapist and victim off the battlefield.  There would be even more pressure not to report the assault – even self-imposed by the victim herself - because there’s a mission at stake.  We are, after all, at war.  That is a decision no woman nor any commander on the ground should have to face.  Until Leon Panetta’s act of tyrannical fiat, the infantry and special forces did not have to consider it.
Women with men is not an equal opportunity.  The standards of conduct and degrees of separation have existed for women’s own protection, but Feminists have bullied us into abandoning them in favor of fake constructs that end up hurting women most of all.  The appalling rate of sexual assault and the lack of prosecution in the military are serious problems that The Invisible War brings to light.  These should be dealt with before putting women at greater risk in combat units on the battlefield.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Dems' Medicare lie -- Why granny should be afraid!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / February 4, 2013
  • Last Updated: 8:38 PM, August 21, 2012
  • Posted: 11:06 PM, August 20, 2012
headshot
President Obama is criss-crossing the country, warning that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would “end Medicare as we know it.” Attention, New York’s 3 million seniors: Don’t be fooled. It’s the Obama health law that destroyed Medicare, though the impact will not be felt for another year or more.
Scientific evidence indicates that the changes made by ObamaCare will shorten the lives of some elderly hospital patients and make it hard for Medicare enrollees to get treated. The only thing left of Medicare is the membership card.
ObamaCare cuts future funding for Medicare by over half a trillion dollars in the next 10 years. Most cuts are made by slashing what hospitals, physicians, hospice care and dialysis centers will be paid. Doctors will get less to care for a senior than for a patient on Medicaid and only a third of what a doctor will be paid to care for a patient with private insurance. New York, the hospital capital of the nation, will be especially hard hit.

Pressure rising: Tough times ahead for American seniors once ObamaCare destroys Medicare, rewarding hospitals for skimping on treatment.
Pressure rising: Tough times ahead for American seniors once ObamaCare destroys Medicare, rewarding hospitals for skimping on treatment.
Last year, Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, warned Congress that seniors will have difficulty finding doctors and institutions to accept Medicare. Doctors who do accept Medicare will not want to spend time doing procedures such as hip replacements, when the pay is so low. Yet the law bars them from providing the care you want for an extra fee. You’re trapped.
Foster also warned that within a decade, 40 percent of health-care institutions could be forced to operate at a loss. New York hospitals are bracing for the hit.
When hospitals run in the red, they can employ fewer nurses and buy less diagnostic equipment.


Cutting hospital payment rates has been tried before, with deadly results. When Medicare cut payments to hospitals in 1997, hospitals hit with the biggest cuts saw death rates for elderly heart-attack patients go up relative to higher-spending hospitals. A $1,000 reduction in what hospitals could spend on a heart-attack patient led to a 6 percent to 8 percent higher death rate, due to fewer nurses and other staff, according to a 2011 National Bureau of Economic Research paper.
Apply that to the Obama health law. In 2019, according to Medicare’s actuaries, the program will spend $1,431 less per enrollee than if the health law had not been enacted. But that’s on average. The one in five enrollees who will need hospital care that year could see it fall by $6,000 or more.
When partisans for ObamaCare say cutting hospital payments will not impact care, don’t believe it. Cuts will result in fewer elderly patients surviving their hospital stays.
Seniors also risk losing access to colonoscopies and other preventative services. The Obama health law empowers the secretary of Health and Human Services to eliminate preventative services for seniors based on the recommendations of the US Preventative Services Task Force (the panel that recommended women over 74 not get routine mammograms). A half page later the secretary is empowered to “increase” preventative services for Medicaid recipients. The winners and losers are clear.
As of October 2012, hospitals that spend the least on seniors will get rewarded; those that spend more will get whacked with demerits. The government calls it “efficiency,” but it’s stingy care.
Data from all hospitals in California show that seniors treated in hospitals providing lower-intensity, lower-cost care have a higher risk of dying instead of recovering and going home. Yet, the Obama administration is pressuring all hospitals to imitate the low-spending ones.
The election should not turn on the lie that Obama will protect Medicare as we’ve known it. Unless the Obama health law is repealed, seniors will have difficulty getting the care they need, and some will die sooner.
Repeal is the key issue in the presidential election, not the merits of Paul Ryan’s alternative proposals. If the Romney-Ryan ticket wins, these proposals will go through many changes during the lawmaking process. But ObamaCare is already the law, and it’s dangerous.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and author of “The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It.”