Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Jimi Jamison: 1951 - 2014


by Larry Simons
September 3, 2014

One of my favorite vocalists, Jimi Jamison, has passed away from a heart attack this past Sunday at the age of 63. Jamison was the lead singer of Survivor from 1984 to the present. He had taken over vocals from Dave Bickler, who, two years prior, sang vocals on the band's biggest hit, "Eye of the Tiger". Before joining Survivor, Jamison was the frontman for the bands Target and Cobra in the 1970's and 1980's.

Jamison, however, scored more hits for the band, such as "I Can't Hold Back", "High On You", "The Search Is Over", "Burning Heart" and "Is This Love".

Jamison also recorded six solo albums between 1991 and 2012 including "Empires", "Crossroads Moment", "Kimball/Jamison" (with Bobby Kimball of Toto) and "Never Too Late". Jamison is also notable for co-writing and singing the theme song for the popular show Baywatch, "I'm Always Here".

Survivor lead guitarist and longtime friend of Jamison, Frankie Sullivan, posted this on his facebook page:

"There is no way to explain the loss of my brother “Jamo.” Over the years we developed a deep friendship. My heart is heavy with sadness as I struggle to express the pain, suffering and deep loss. 

Though I rest assured that Jim is in the best of places, it still provides little comfort for those of us left behind. His voice was magic and he had a loving heart. I called him “Golden Throat” and for good reason. Jim Jamison had a voice we will never forget. It was massive and huge and yet sweet and gentle. He was a loving soul and a brother to me in many ways. I will miss him greatly".

Outside of the hit songs with Jamison on lead, are my personal favorites from Jamison. Below is my list of Jamison's best songs, with Survivor and solo.

With Survivor:

"First Night"
"Everlasting"
"I See You In Everyone"
"Popular Girl"
"Broken Promises"
"The Moment of Truth"
"How Much Love"
"Keep It Right Here"
"Rebels Son"
"Oceans"
"When Seconds Count"
"In Good Faith"
"Man Against the World"
"Desperate Dreams"
"Across the Miles"
"One More Chance"
"Seconds Away"
"Don't Give Up"


Solo:

"Behind the Music"
"Crossroads Moment"
"That's Why I Sing"
"Lost"
"'Til the Morning Comes"
"As Is"
"Can't Wait for Love"  (with Bobby Kimball)
"Empires"
"The Great Unknown"
"Everybody's Got A Broken Heart"
"Walk On (Wildest Dreams)"
"Street Survivor"
"Never Too Late"
"Calling the Game"

Here are a few videos featuring Jimi on vocals

"I Can't Hold Back" (1984)


"High On You" (1985)


"The Search Is Over" (1985)


"Across the Miles" (1988)


"Never Too Late" (2012)

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Rachel Maddow, As Do Many Others, Showcases Her Hypocrisy On the Redskins "Racial Slur" Issue


Right before last football season, Maddow wouldn't say the word "Redskins". On her TV show in April of this year, not only does she use "Redskins" 16 times, but also mentions the NAACP. Why is she using an acronym that includes the words "colored people"?

by Larry Simons
June 22, 2014

Let me just point out right off the bat that the entire issue of the Washington Redskins' nickname being "offensive" is one of the biggest fake controversies of my lifetime. Some Native American groups, as well as a plethora of celebrities and sports figures, "claim" to be offended. I can almost guarantee none of these people are really offended.

Why do I say this? Because every single one of these celebrities and sports figures has used the word "redskins" at some point in their lives. Am I saying that if a word is said at some point in time, it can never later on evolve into a racial slur? Not at all. The word "nigger" was not always a derogatory term, for it was used in such works as Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of Narcissus and Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without racist connotation. But over the years it became used in the pejorative sense and today it is a racial slur.

This is not the case with the term "redskins". Never have I heard this term used in a derogatory fashion. In fact, I have only heard it used in praise of Native Americans. The team song for example, "Hail to the Redskins!", is hardly pejorative. In addition, if a word is offensive, it is usually considered offensive by the vast majority of, if not all people. We now say "the N-word" in society because that word is so overwhelmingly offensive to all, the word is not even uttered unless the person is actually a racist.

I have not heard or heard of the word "redskins" ever being used in a derogatory fashion. Not once in my life have I heard someone walk down the street and say, "Hey, you stupid redskin, get out of here!" Unlike the "N-word", "redskins" never evolved into a derogatory term, and if it did, I totally missed it.

Many team names at Native American schools still use the nickname "redskins". In Anadarko, Oklahoma [where the Native American population is 41%], the local movie theater is called the Redskin Theater. In fact, the state name of Oklahoma in the Choctaw language means "Red People" ['okla' meaning 'people', and 'humma' meaning 'red']. Where are the calls to change the name of Oklahoma?

Redskin Theater in Anadarko, Oklahoma

In reality, the name "redskins" does not even have North American origins. From a 2009 article:
"The original name was a European one used to describe Algonquins who painted their face with bright red ocher and bloodroot, thereby making their face red with war paint. Only later on was it implied that the name was derived from a Native American's exposure to the sun or from the scalps of Indians that were paid to cowboys as bounties. Unfortunately, for some reason, perhaps because of our own ignorance, the name is believed to come from the human scalps of Native Americans. However, the original meaning comes from Europe and was used by the Europeans when they arrived in North America, hundreds of years before any reference to any other meaning was used. This is supported by Reader's Digest in its book "Americas Fascinating Indian Heritage" where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was..
"'inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.'"
Enter hypocrite Rachel Maddow, host of her own MSNBC show, who is one of the many progressives in the fake redskin name change controversy who claims the word "redskins" offends them. It doesn't. How do I know this? Easy. Her own words.

Last August, right before the start of the NFL football season, Maddow covered a story on how congressional delegate Eni Faleomavaega was now using the "R-word" to describe the Redskins and how others were following suit. In the segment, Maddow herself used the term "R-word" completely independently from her coverage of others using it.

Here is that clip:


This phony boycott didn't last long. This past April, Maddow flip-flopped and went back to using the "racist" term no less than 16 times during her April 28, 2014 telecast. Here is a segment of the transcript: [and audio]
"At the time the Redskins moved to Washington, that made them the southernmost team in the National Football League. Even though Washington, D.C., is not all that far South, the owner of the team made a strategic decision to try to market the Redskins as the team of the South, as the team of the old Confederacy. The band used to play "Dixie" before Redskins games.
And the Redskins owner, George Preston Marshall, he really did refuse to hire any black players for his team, 15 years after the rest of the league integrated. And he wasn`t embarrassed about it, he was proud about it. He said his team would, quote, "start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites."
Question: If Maddow was so strong in her belief that the term "redskins" was racist on August 9, 2013, why did she then continue using the "racist" term on April 28, 2014? Answer: Because it's a fake controversy, and Maddow is not offended at all. She, like most of her ilk, pretend to be upset so they have a "cause" to defend and to give the appearance she cares about a controversy that progressives usually get involved in.

As if this wasn't hypocritical enough, during the exact same April 28, 2014 telecast, she makes a reference to the NAACP. Yes, that NAACP, which stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Yes, that's right. The same woman who claims to be upset over the word "redskins" because she feels it's a racial slur, has no problem whatsoever using the acronym for the words "colored people".

The hypocrisy doesn't end with the acronym usage folks. Maddow won an award at a 2012 Detroit NAACP Annual Freedom Fund Dinner. So, according to Maddow, it is A-OK to support an organization with the words "colored people" in its name, but using the word "redskins" is offensive.

Here are two videos of Maddow at that dinner




Maddow at the NAACP dinner, with the words "colored people" all over the wall behind
her. No objections from Maddow.

Amazingly, the term "colored people" is not even considered derogatory to the directors of the NAACP. There has been no movement or attempt to rename the NAACP to a more politically correct term.

In my opinion, "colored" is more offensive than "redskins", because who's to say which person is colored? To a white person, non-whites are considered "colored", but to non-whites, whites would be considered "colored", correct? Why would I have the right to call someone not like me "colored"? That implies the person whose skin color is different is abnormal. Where am I wrong? Was it not the term "colored" that was on bathroom doors and water fountains during the days of segregation in the 1960's? Why isn't that offensive for that reason alone?

Whether the NAACP changes their name is their issue and their business. Personally, I have no problem with what any organization wants to use as their name. Keep in mind, I'm not the one who gets involved in fake controversies. My point is, why isn't Maddow offended by this? Maybe it's because progressives usually only get involved when an issue has turned into a "controversy" and gains attention, then they hop aboard, acting like they "care".

But why does it have to be controversial and garner nationwide attention for a word or phrase to be deemed racist? If a term is racist, would it matter how much attention it is receiving? Would it matter how many are offended?

In my opinion, the team name "Redskins" is an honor to Native Americans. The team song says "Hail to" them. Most Native Americans support the usage of their images and references in sports names and mascots. What they generally get offended at is the usage of caricatures like The Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo logo and the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk. Most support the Redskins image because it is not a caricature.

If I were Dan Snyder [owner of the Redskins], I would agree to change the team name right after the Federal Government changes the name of the President's anthem "Hail to the Chief" [since that could conjure up images of Native Americans and could be offensive] to a more politically correct title that actually describes the President, like "Hail to the Corporate-Controlled Fascist Totalitarian".

Monday, June 16, 2014

Casey Kasem: 1932 - 2014


by Larry Simons
June 16, 2014

Yesterday, on Father's Day, radio legend Casey Kasem, who is best known as host of the long-running American Top 40, lost his battle with a particular form of dementia known as Lewy Body disease. He was 82.

Instead of the traditional tribute in which I would normally list the accomplishments of the departed, I wish this to be more personal because Casey Kasem, unlike many of the celebrities I pay tribute to on my blog, actually influenced my life.

Music is a huge part of my life. But it wasn't just the actual music I was interested in. I became infatuated with the facts and figures of who was behind the music: the songwriters, the producers, the year the song came out, what album a song was released from, etc. Casey Kasem played a huge role in that.

Because of my strong interest in his radio show American Top 40, I began my own personal journals of my favorite music and I have been doing it since late 1981. It's a fun hobby and they make great time pieces for music.

Kasem began the American Top 40 program on July 4, 1970 and his last broadcast for reporting the Billboard singles chart was in 1988. One has to imagine that Kasem had to love this era of music. You simply cannot perform a profession unless you have a love for the very material you're covering. My point is, Kasem made you love the era as well. He gave pop music validation. It was official because Casey Kasem's stamp of approval was on it, even if you hated the fact that "Billy, Don't Be A Hero" or "Rock Me Amadeus" reached #1. You were back in front of the radio next week, listening to see if it was dethroned.

Every Saturday from early 1982 to mid 1986, from 9am to 1pm I was there listening to Casey count down the songs. He made me appreciate not just the music more, but the facts behind the musicians. Kasem's influence even followed me to college where I portrayed him in a skit.

He will be truly missed by generations of music lovers who appreciate music and beyond the music, the chart positions, the stories behind the song, the histories of the performers and the love for music itself.

I have always said, Dick Clark made stars, Casey Kasem validated them and made you keep reaching for them.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Bill Maher Tells A Guest That Obama Can't Change Laws Congress Passes Because He's Not A King


So why has he changed the Affordable Care Act 23 times without the approval of Congress?

by Larry Simons
June 9, 2014

On Friday's telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, the hot topic was the illegal prisoner swap President Obama made on May 31 when he released five Taliban operatives for the return of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who had been in captivity since 2009 after his desertion.

Maher argued that the biggest threat to America is not these five men, but the fact that Guantanamo Bay is still open. Political commentator Nicolle Wallace chimes in and says to Maher, "Obama's had 6 years to close it".

Maher responds, "And why didn't he? Because Congress wouldn't let him". Unheard in the ensuing cross-talk was Wallace saying, "Well, he did this without Congress!". Good point. But it went unaddressed because it was apparently unheard.

After Anthony "Dick Pic" Weiner puts in his irrelevant two cents [because he IS irrelevant], Wallace reiterates, "Obama's had 6 years to figure it out". Maher responds, "What do you mean 'figure it out'? That's such bullshit and you know that's bullshit." Wallace responds, "He's been President for 6 years". Maher replies, "He's the President. He's not the king for 6 years! Congress passed a law that said he couldn't do it".

Obviously, the problem with Maher's statement is that he is implying Obama follows laws Congress passes. If this is true, why has Obama changed the Affordable Care Act law 23 times completely unilaterally, without uttering one word to Congress, let alone seeking their approval to do it?

The following is the complete list [so far] on how many times Obama changed the ACA law entirely by himself:

1. Medicare Advantage patch: The administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus of MA plans from the program. (April 19, 2011)

2. Employee reporting: The administration, contrary to the Obamacare legislation, instituted a one-year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided health insurance. (January 1, 2012)

3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)

4. Delaying a low-income plan: The administration delayed implementation of the Basic Health Program until 2015. It would have provided more-affordable health coverage for certain low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid. (February 7, 2013)

5. Closing the high-risk pool: The administration decided to halt enrollment in transitional federal high-risk pools created by the law, blocking coverage for an estimated 40,000 new applicants, citing a lack of funds. The administration had money from a fund under Secretary Sebelius’s control to extend the pools, but instead used the money to pay for advertising for Obamacare enrollment and other purposes. (February 15, 2013)

6. Doubling allowed deductibles: Because some group health plans use more than one benefits administrator, plans are allowed to apply separate patient cost-sharing limits for one year to different services, such as doctor/hospital and prescription drugs, allowing maximum out-of-pocket costs to be twice as high as the law intended. (February 20, 2013)

7. Small businesses on hold: The administration has said that the federal exchanges for small businesses will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, and instead delayed until 2015 the provision of SHOP (Small-Employer Health Option Program) that requires the exchanges to offer a choice of qualified health plans. (March 11, 2013)

8. Employer-mandate delay: By an administrative action that’s contrary to statutory language in the ACA, the reporting requirements for employers were delayed by one year. (July 2, 2013)

9. Self-attestation: Because of the difficulty of verifying income after the employer-reporting requirement was delayed, the administration decided it would allow “self-attestation” of income by applicants for health insurance in the exchanges. This was later partially retracted after congressional and public outcry over the likelihood of fraud. (July 15, 2013)

10. Delaying the online SHOP exchange: The administration first delayed for a month and later for a year until November 2014 the launch of the online insurance marketplace for small businesses. The exchange was originally scheduled to launch on October 1, 2013. (September 26, 2013) (November 27, 2013)

11. Congressional opt-out: The administration decided to offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staffs when they purchase insurance on the exchanges created by the ACA, a subsidy the law doesn’t provide. (September 30, 2013)

12. Delaying the individual mandate: The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate, by declaring that customers who have purchased insurance by March 31, 2014 will avoid the tax penalty. Previously, they would have had to purchase a plan by mid-February. (October 23, 2013)

13. Insurance companies may offer canceled plans: The administration announced that insurance companies may re-offer plans that previous regulations forced them to cancel. (November 14, 2013)

14. Exempting unions from reinsurance fee: The administration gave unions an exemption from the reinsurance fee (one of ObamaCare’s many new taxes). To make up for this exemption, non-exempt plans will have to pay a higher fee, which will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles. (December 2, 2013)

15. Extending Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan: The administration extended the federal high risk pool until January 31, 2014 and again until March 15, 2014, and again until April 30, 2014 to prevent a coverage gap for the most vulnerable. The plans were scheduled to expire on December 31, but were extended because it has been impossible for some to sign up for new coverage on healthcare.gov. (December 12, 2013) (January 14, 2014) (March 14, 2014)

16. Expanding hardship waiver to those with canceled plans: The administration expanded the hardship waiver, which excludes people from the individual mandate and allows some to purchase catastrophic health insurance, to people who have had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations. The administration later extended this waiver until October 1, 2016. (December 19, 2013) (March 5, 2014)

17. Equal employer coverage delayed: Tax officials will not be enforcing in 2014 the mandate requiring employers to offer equal coverage to all their employees. This provision of the law was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but IRS officials have “yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.” (January 18, 2014)

18. Employer-mandate delayed again: The administration delayed for an additional year provisions of the employer mandate, postponing enforcement of the requirement for medium-size employers until 2016 and relaxing some requirements for larger employers. Businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to 70% of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and beyond. (February 10, 2014)

19. Extending subsidies to non-exchange plans: The administration released a bulletin through CMS extending subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance plans outside of the federal or state exchanges. The bulletin also requires retroactive coverage and subsidies for individuals from the date they applied on the marketplace rather than the date they actually enrolled in a plan. CRS issued a memo discussing the legality of these subsidies. (February 27, 2014)

20. Non-compliant health plans get two year extension: The administration pushed back the deadline by two years that requires health insurers to cancel plans that are not compliant with ObamaCare’s mandates. These “illegal” plans may now be offered until 2017. This extension will prevent a wave cancellation notices from going out before the 2014 midterm elections. (March 5, 2014)

21. Delaying the sign-up deadline: The administration delayed until mid-April the March 31 deadline to sign up for insurance. Applicants simply need to check a box on their application to qualify for this extended sign-up period. (March 26, 2014)

22. Canceling Medicare Advantage cuts: The administration canceled scheduled cuts to Medicare Advantage. The ACA calls for $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years. (April 7, 2014)

23. More Funds for Insurer Bailout:  The administration said it will supplement risk corridor payments to health insurance plans with “other sources of funding” if the higher risk profile of enrollees means the plans would lose money. (May 16, 2014)

Supporters of the President will claim that Obama didn't "change" the law, he simply tweaked it because , after all, it's a new law and no law is perfect when it is written. Bullshit. Obama signed the ACA into law in March 2010. He signed it, meaning it is his duty as President to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed" according to Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution. This means he is to execute a law regardless if he likes the law. If a provision needs to be altered or removed from a law, it has to be voted on by Congress. Obama changed the health care law 23 times unilaterally, completely ignoring Congress.

Maher is delusional if he believes that Obama has never [not once] ignored Congress and neglected to seek their approval when it came to changing a law or abiding by a provision within the law itself [as in the prisoner swap case, where Obama violated federal law by not giving Congress a 30-day notice before the prisoner transfer].

Obama supporters will claim, "yes, but Obama didn't 'change' the law itself on Obamacare, he simply changed a provision". Every law consists of all its parts. Even changing a provision to a law is changing the law itself.

It is quite odd that Maher defended President Obama by sarcastically using the one descriptive title that he [Maher] believes his political opponents are insisting Obama must be [a King], when that is the most accurate title for his dictatorial actions.

Watch the clip here

Saturday, June 7, 2014

King Obama Violates Yet Another Federal Law, and In the Process Commits a Crime Punishable by 15 Years to Life In Prison


In addition to Obama breaking a federal law, he is guilty of a much bigger crime: Providing material support to a terrorist organization, punishable by up to 15 years in prison [or any term of years to life if the death of any person results]

by Larry Simons
June 7, 2014

As if things could not get worse for the scandal-a-day Commander-In-Chief in the midst of the re-opening of the Benghazi attack and more recently the Veterans Administration fiasco, they have, and in the biggest way. Last Saturday, President Obama illegally authorized the release of five high-ranking terrorist detainees and exchanged them in a prisoner swap for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a so-called "prisoner of war", when in reality he has been labeled a deserter by his former comrades.

This time it's not a mere scandal for Obama. It is a violation of a federal law that not only carries with it the possibility of impeachment, but is punishable by a long prison term, not to mention the fact that releasing five top terror suspects [who will most likely end up back in their home country and their terror organization] will put all Americans in potential danger.

The law that Obama violated is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, which Obama signed just six months ago, which requires the Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, to notify Congress within 30 days of the release of any detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

According to Section 1035 of the NDAA, upon notifying Congress of the release of prisoners, the Defense Secretary is required to also include in the notification the following:

(1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or
release.
(2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in
the national security interests of the United States.
(3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks
of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released,
including any actions taken to address factors relevant to a
prior case of re-engagement described in subsection (c)(3).
(4) A copy of any Periodic Review Board findings relating
to the individual.
(5) A description of the evaluation conducted pursuant
to subsection (c), including a summary of the assessment
required by paragraph (6) of such subsection.

None of the above were handed over to Congress. Therefore illegal.

Also not carried out was the notification to Congress for the usage of federal funds [taxpayer dollars] that were spent for the actual transferring of prisoners to Qatar, and for returning Bergdahl. None of the notifications outlined in the NDAA were given. None of the conditions of the law were met. Nothing. The entire process was as illegal as you can get. In fact, it has been reported that the Obama administration never informed Capital Hill of the transfer until after Bergdahl was in American custody and the five Taliban prisoners were ready to leave.

Obama supporters will claim that Obama may have signed the law last year, but was opposed to the 30 day notice provision. Tough shit. In that circumstance Obama has a choice, to sign the law or veto it. He is not allowed to pick and choose which provisions he likes or dislikes, so he is left with the choice to sign it or veto it. He signed it, period. That means as President, according to the Constitution, and per his oath to uphold the Constitution, he must faithfully execute laws whether he agrees with them or not.

Obama violated the very law he signed, and for that he must be removed from office and charged with high treason for providing material support to terrorists. Others have actually been successfully charged and convicted for this very crime.

The following are the individuals who have been charged or convicted for providing material support for terrorism under this law:

  • John Walker Lindh, who was captured fighting for the Taliban during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, one of the first battles in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison on various charges
  • David Hicks, a former Guantanamo detainee who pled guilty in 2007 and served a sentence of less than one year in Australia.
  • Lynne Stewart, a 70 year old veteran civil rights lawyer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for releasing information from her imprisoned client Omar Abdel-Rahman
  • Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former Guantanamo detainee who was Osama bin Laden's former driver. He was convicted in 2008 and served a sentence of less than one year in Yemen
  • Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, who attended the al Farouq training camp in 2000
  • David Headley, for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks

This law, 18 U.S. Code § 2339A and  § 2339B, a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, states anyone [and this includes the President] who provides material support for terrorists can be fined and imprisoned for no more than 15 years, but if a death occurs [as a result of the material support], could be sentenced to any term of years or for life. Specifically in § 2339B, the law states:

"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life".

The statute states that in order to violate this paragraph:

1. a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6))

Check. Obama knows this.

2. that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)

Check. Obama knows this.

3. or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

Check. Obama knows this.

"Material support or resources" is defined in § 2339A as the following:

"any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials"

Under statute § 2339B, it states:

"No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel” unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization".

Obama clearly knows that he has provided a terrorist organization with five more personnel. Obama supporters will argue that the five Taliban prisoners are not back in their terrorist organization, but are in Qatar for one year and Obama has promised that "we will be keeping eyes on them". Obama admitted this past Tuesday during a press conference in Poland that the Taliban terrorists could return to battle and harm Americans.

Obama stated, "Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely". How is this NOT admitting guilt of 18 U.S. Code § 2339B as stated above that reads, "unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization"? How is he not being charged with a crime??

Obama supporters cannot argue that he can simply use an executive order and "do what he wants" when it concerns prisoners of war. This is false in this case, because as Judge Napolitano pointed out to Shepard Smith yesterday, the President under no circumstance can violate a US statute even to get a prisoner of war returned. He also cannot spend money that has not been authorized by Congress, nor can he aid a terrorist organization.

Napolitano also adds that if the President had sent the 5 Taliban prisoners to Qatar to go to jail, that would be a completely different scenario and there would be no crime. But Obama admitted that these men could very well end up back with their terrorist group. That turns it into a crime.

On top of committing a federal crime, Obama then stands before cameras and states he has "no apologies" for the prisoner swap. Liberal talk show hosts like Bill Maher downplay it likes it's no big deal, only mentioning "how dangerous could five bearded assholes be?", while completely ignoring the legal aspect of Obama's actions. And when colossal fucknut Harry Reid was asked by a reporter if the White House could have done a better job in making sure the law was obeyed that required Congress to receive a 30 day notice, Reid replied, "What difference does it make?"

There you have it folks. When the President breaks a law [that puts millions of Americans in danger], Reid's response is, "What difference does it make?", but when Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who made the news a few months ago, breaks the law and refuses to pay federal taxes for his land [which harms NO ONE except the coffers of the Federal government], Reid calls Bundy's supporters "domestic terrorists".

So, to Harry Reid, actual American citizens are "terrorists" because they stand up to the Federal government, but when he is confronted by a reporter who asks why the law was not followed concerning five ACTUAL terrorists who Obama admitted will go right back to Afghanistan and rejoin their terrorist organization, Reid says it simply doesn't matter.

Un-fucking-believable.

Since President Obama actually releases terrorists who will most likely be back in their home country to rejoin their terrorist pals who will be hell-bent on attacking America [maybe as soon as a year], and Harry Reid supports these actions and claims it "doesn't matter", isn't it safe to say that these two are the REAL terrorists?

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Pennsylvania Boy Who Was Charged with Wiretapping by Recording His Bullies Was Wrongfully Charged


Judge that found bullied boy guilty and fined him simply didn't know the law

by Larry Simons
June 4, 2014

Back in February, a 15-year-old Pennsylvania boy who had been bullied by several classmates for several months finally decided to do something about it, since the school, South Fayette High School, near Pittsburgh, was doing nothing about it. The boy took his iPad into school and recorded the bullies. Instead of school officials listening to the recording and punishing the bullies, they called the police and had him charged with illegal wiretapping.

The boy, Christian Stanfield, was charged with disorderly conduct for recording the bullies in the classroom. He also served a Saturday detention and was required to stand before a judge to face charges. District Judge Maureen McGraw-Desmet found him guilty and slapped him with a fine.

In mid-April the charges were dropped because the cop who wrote the citation simply changed his mind to not charge the boy for felony wiretapping, but he said he still felt the disorderly conduct charge was necessary. Another Judge signed an order to withdraw the citation. A spokesman said the citation was dropped because no one who is authorized to give advice on wiretap issues was ever contacted in their office and they could not contact the cop who issued the citation after multiple attempts.

This story, when it first broke, drew strong criticism and outrage from the community [and rightly so] because the victim was being charged with a felony and the attackers were not punished at all. Now the charges have been dropped and everything is back to normal and it's business as usual.

One has to wonder, why were wiretapping charges ever brought against Stanfield in this case? It appears no one bothered to read the actual Pennsylvania statute concerning interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications.

The statute, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 states that it is a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent.

It states that a person IS guilty of a felony in the third degree if:
(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or 
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Each item in this provision ends with the words "wire, electronic or oral communication". In Stanfield's case, he recorded live oral communication, so "wire" and "electronic" do not apply. The statute 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5702 (Definitions) defines "oral communications" as such:

“Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The term does not include any electronic communication"

In other words, this law does not apply when the one speaking [and being recorded] does not have the expectation that what he or she is saying will or should be recorded. Examples of this would include private conversations in private settings, or any place where you would not expect to be recorded speaking.

When Stanfield recorded the bullies ridiculing him, it was in an open, public setting, and it was heard by the teacher and rest of his classmates. Therefore, this incident would not qualify as private, nor would it be an example in which the speaker would not expect to be recorded, since it was in a public setting [classroom] and it was heard by at least 15 other students.

Even the website Digital Media Law Project, which offers legal assistance, says this about the PA wiretapping law:

"Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place without consent. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you is private". Notice the emphasis on privacy.

There is no better example of a place in which the speaker should expect to have his voice recorded than in an open, public setting [such as a school, where nearly every teenager these days possesses a cell phone] where he or she is spewing obscenities and insults at others. This Pennsylvania wiretapping statute only applies in cases where the speaker [the one being recorded] does not expect to be recorded because it is private speech [and therefore both parties must consent]. Stanfield's bullies were not speaking in a private setting, nor should they not have expected to be recorded.

Stanfield was falsely charged, period. The police, nor the Judges in this entire ordeal knew the law. If I were Stanfield, I would file a lawsuit against the police department and the Judge whose responsibility it was to know the wiretapping laws, but did not.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

California Shooter [and Stabber] Kills 3 People with A Knife and 3 with A Gun, But Most Stories Only Focus On the Gun Deaths


No calls by the establishment media for knife-control or a knife ban, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger [pictured] stabbed his first three victims to death. Nope, it's just about the guns

by Larry Simons
May 27, 2014

In the past few years, whenever some deranged lunatic has gunned down people at a mall or a school, the establishment media [more specifically, the liberal media] have done nothing but blame guns, attack gun owners and have pushed for the repeal or the abolishment of the Second Amendment.

After a shooting occurs, it becomes crystal clear that mostly liberals want gun-control or guns outlawed period. Conservatives fight back and attack liberals for wanting to dismantle the Second Amendment. The liberals deny they want guns taken away and even deny that they politicize the issue, two things everyone knows couldn't be more untrue.

There is no better evidence that the corporate-controlled [liberal] media want guns completely out of the hands of all non-police and non-military people when an incident occurs that involves casualties in which guns were not the only weapon used [but only focus on the guns], like the one that occurred in Santa Barbara, California last Friday night.

This past Friday night, 22-year old Elliot Rodger, son of assistant Hollywood director Peter Rodger, stabbed three men to death at his apartment, then proceeded to go on a shooting rampage that left another three dead and many injured before Rodger took his own life by shooting himself in the head.

Many stories about this incident from mainstream websites either barely mention the stabbings or completely omit them, clearly illustrating their obvious intention of undermining the stabbings and directing all the attention to the shootings only, so their agenda to rid the population of guns can be achieved.

One story on Time.com completely omits the stabbings. If you had no information on this story and read this article, you would walk away thinking only guns were used. A word search of the words "knife", "stab" or "stabbing" came to a whopping zero in results, whereas a word search for the words, "gun" or any form of the word like "gunshot", "gunman", "guns" or "gun-control" produced nine results. The word "shoot" or any form of the word, like "shooting" appeared four times. Despite the fact that 50% of the deaths were the result of a knife as the weapon, guns are mentioned nine times and knives are not mentioned at all.

On another popular liberal site, The Huffington Post, I performed the same word check on one of their stories. Results: "guns" and any form of the word: 13 times. The word "shoot" or any form of the word: 7 times. "Stab" or "knife": zero.

In a story on CNN.com, the word "gun" or any form of the word: 13 times. The word "shoot": 4 times. The word "stab": 3 times [but the word was used only in the context of the writer explaining in Rodger's own words what his plan would be]. The word "knife": zero

In a USA Today story, the word "gun" [or any form] used 9 times. The word "shoot": 11 times. The word "stab": 3 times. The word "knife": zero.

LA Times: The word "gun": 13 times. The word "shoot": 7 times. The word "stab": 2 times [and 1 of these usages was, once again, Rodger's own words]. The word "knife": zero.

Forbes.com: The word "gun": 4 times. The word "shoot": 3 times. The word "stab": 2 times [and 1 of these usages was in the very bottom, underneath the article. The sentence reads "*Edited to add information about stabbing deaths that occurred at Rodger’s apartment"]. I found this statement interesting. In other words, the writer, Kashmir Hill, is admitting that she did not even include the stabbings in her original article. One might defend her and claim that she simply did not know about the stabbings and went back to amend the story. My personal take on this is that a good journalist should not write about or report anything until all the facts are in.

The Forbes.com story only mentions the word "knife" once, and that is only in reference to a graphic Japanese film titled, "Philosophy of the Knife", which was one of the favorites on Rodger's YouTube page.

So you see, it's practically unanimous that the cover story across the board is "guns are bad, they kill, ban them" whereas the usage of a knife claimed the same number of people, yet calls to ban knives are non-existent. We see no liberal, or anyone else for that matter, calling for widespread knife disarmament. It's hypocrisy at its peak.

Of course, we all know how silly it would be for anyone to advocate for "knife-control" because knives have other practical uses, unlike guns, which we all know only have one purpose: to slaughter innocent groups of people in mass shootings. I hope the sarcasm was loud and clear, because it is just as ridiculous to pass more gun-control laws. The only people that suffer with the passage of more gun laws are the very people who use guns lawfully and with no criminal intent.

More gun laws will do two things: Strip law-abiding citizens of their rights to own guns and increase restrictions on them, making it much more difficult for non-criminals to defend themselves against the very ones in whom more gun laws will help, the very people who have no respect for laws to begin with: criminals.

It is a plain and simple fact that where there are more guns there is less crime. Shake your head all you want, it's just fact. The truth is, any time a crime happens as the result of a no gun zone or a gun restricted area, it gets either downplayed in the media or not mentioned at all. The following story is a prime example.

On May 18, a restaurant in Durham, NC was robbed at gunpoint when three masked men entered the restaurant through the back door. A few of the staff members were injured but no one was seriously hurt. One cannot help but to wonder if the masked men would have entered at all if not for a sign posted on the front door that read, "NO WEAPONS. NO CONCEALED FIREARMS".


The fact that the men entered in through the back door [and not the front, where the sign is] is not a valid point as to why the men still entered and robbed the place. Anti-gun advocates might argue, "they didn't see the sign if they came in the back door". This is a ludicrous argument. This suggests that criminals obey gun laws. Would a law-abiding citizen have been allowed to enter and rob the restaurant if there was no "no weapons" sign posted? Of course not. Why? Because it is illegal to rob anyone, period.

I have news for anti-gun advocates: Criminals do NOT obey gun laws. Congress could pass 50 new gun laws tomorrow and the only thing it would accomplish is that even a greater number of the law-abiding population would be either completely disarmed or at the very least, more restricted in defending themselves.

Case-in-point: The sign on the North Carolina restaurant accomplished nothing. These men still entered and robbed the place. Because they didn't see a sign? Of course not. I am 100% sure they were very aware of the sign. It helps a criminal tremendously in knowing that during a robbery, no one can possibly intervene, because no one will be armed to shoot back in order to prevent the crime. Anti-Second Amendment advocates do not understand this simple point.

The anti-gun crowd wants only one thing: to get rid of guns so the federal government would have no resistance from their citizens, so that their tyranny can accelerate.

Monday, May 26, 2014

What A Hero Is to Me


Remembering my grandfather on Memorial Day

by Larry Simons
May 26, 2014

It has been 69 years since my grandfather, Laverne Isaac "Ike" Brendle, served in the United States Marine Corps. He served from 1943-1945. In 1944, he served as part of a Marine Detachment Unit [7th division] aboard the USS Astoria CL-90 [pictured below].



His service ribbons include American Theater, Asiatic-Pacific Theater with four bronze service stars, and Philippine Liberation ribbon with one star. He served aboard USS ASTORIA CL-90 from her shakedown cruise [June 20, 1944] through the end of the war. His Pacific service included the liberation of the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa operations. Here is his dogtag and service ribbons:




My grandfather was a "plankowner" of the USS Astoria CL-90, meaning he had reported aboard the ship on or before May 17, 1944 [the date the ship was commissioned]. Plankowners were recognized by the U.S. Navy as original crew members of the ship, and they were issued Plankowner's certificates. [My grandfather's is below]


Grandpa also was one of the art directors of the ships newspaper. His name is listed in the column of art directors of the first anniversary edition of the newspaper. [click to enlarge - below]


Grandpa also kept a diary aboard ship, which was strictly forbidden. In a few of the pages, grandpa writes about the news of the deaths of FDR and Hitler. [below]


Here, Grandpa writes, "Got the news of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt's death. Every body was pretty shocked and no one said much about it."



About Hitler, Grandpa writes, "We hear that Hitler is dead----I hope it's true and that this d--n war is soon secured."

This is what kind of man my grandfather was. Even in the midst of war and the possibility of being fired at by Japanese planes or kamikazes plunging their planes into his ship, he didn't use profanity. He actually wrote "d--n" in the diary instead of just saying "damn".

It was not only grandpa's military career that made him great. It was his love of life, family and his country that truly defined him. He had a talent and love for art that could not be surpassed. He owned his own arts and craft store after the war. Everyone that knew grandpa liked him, and his late wife [my grandmother] never spoke one unpleasant word about him.

Grandpa died on August 27, 1955 at the age of 36. He suffered from myelogenous leukemia. He was a part of and a witness to history and he will never be forgotten. It matters not that he will never be mentioned on a World War II documentary or that he was never famous. When I think of heroes, I think of my grandfather.

Here are a few more pictures of grandpa
























Grandpa outside of his store in the early 1950's





















Grandpa with his son Tommy [my uncle]





















I have posted this one before. This is grandpa on the USS Astoria on August 6, 1945, the very day of the bombing of Hiroshima. In fact, he is holding a teletype dispatch announcing that the bomb has been dropped