Tag: Reports

Smith & Wesson Reports That Gun Sales Are Going Gangbusters

Smith And Wesson: Gun Sales Are Going Gangbusters – Right Scoop

.
…………….

.
Once again all the gun control talk has gun sales at unexpected levels, according to Smith and Wesson, who say their sales are simply going gangbusters:
.

BUSINESS INSIDER – Business at the gunmaker Smith & Wesson is going gangbusters.

On Monday evening, management announced that it was raising its guidance because sales had been unexpectedly strong.

For the three months ending January 31, it estimates that it will have $175 million to $180 million in sales, up from its earlier guidance of $150 million to $155 million. This is much higher than the $155 million expected by analysts.

According to a press release, “the sell-through rate of its products at distribution has been stronger than originally anticipated, resulting in reduced distributor inventories of its firearms.”

In other words, people are buying guns faster than merchants can restock the shelves.

KEEP READING

.

.

50 Intelligence Analysts File Complaints Claiming ISIS Reports Are Politicized To Fit Obama Regime Narrative

American Spies Revolt Against Obama Admin; Say ISIS Reports Are Politicized To Fit Narrative!! – Soopermexican

.

.
The Daily Beast says that 50 spies have signed a document saying that the Obama administration is politicizing their reports on ISIS in order to fit their political narrative:

It’s being called a “revolt” by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war – but are instead seeing their reports turned into happy talk.

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.

This is pretty remarkable – it sounds so much like the spin the government handed down to the public about Vietnam.

More:

The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.

The two signatories to the complaint were described as the ones formally lodging it, and the additional analysts are willing and able to back up the substance of the allegations with concrete examples.
.
Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the commander in charge of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going.

“Cherry-picked” intelligence? Sounds a lot like what they say about the Iraq War, doesn’t it? But what do you wanna bet that they’ll downplay this as much as possible?

.

.

President Asshat Claims Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners

Obama’s Terrible Iran Speech: My Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners – Hot Air

.

.
The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency – so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

————————————————————————————————————————–
David Harsanyi
@davidharsanyi

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

12:50 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is – and always disingenuously – when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

In fact, that’s basically an Iranian talking point coming out of the president’s mouth, that some elements of the U.S. government are stone-cold fanatics who’ll accept nothing short of war with Iran. You hear a lot of Iranian talking points coming from the White House lately, curiously enough: Ed wrote this morning about John Kerry warning his former colleagues in Congress not to “screw” the country’s lunatic supreme leader by torpedoing a deal he kinda sorta supports. Here’s another choice bit from the same interview when Kerry was asked why we would agree to advanced enrichment 10 years from now by a country that’s sworn it’ll destroy Israel:

Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis – and by many Americans – that Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel, mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know…” Here I interjected: “Wipe it off the map.” Kerry continued: “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me – they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”

That’s some fine PR for the mullahs: They haven’t tried to destroy Israel yet, and as far as what the future holds, who knows? And yet it’s the GOP, according to this guy’s boss, that’s making common cause with Iranian lunatics, not the White House. Over to you, Michael Weiss:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Michael Weiss
@michaeldweiss

Please posit these two news stories, conveniently placed side by side.

2:03 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Two clips for you here, one about “common cause” and the other of Obama acknowledging that, sure, some of the money Iran gets after sanctions are lifted will go towards funding terror. This too he defends as if his deal was the only possible outcome of the negotiations: Sanctions relief was always going to be part of a nuclear agreement, he notes, so if you oppose that, you oppose diplomacy altogether. That would be a fair point if the agreement had produced something more meaningful for the U.S., like a permanent end to Iranian nuclearization. If the program had been “dismantled” rather than simply slowed down for 10 years, even Netanyahu could have gone along with it; the benefit would have been worth the cost of some extra cash in Iran’s terror treasury. Instead they got the money and we got nothing more than a 10-year respite from having to decide what to do about a fanatic Shiite regime with nuclear “breakout” capacity. And you know what the weirdest part of all of this is? For all their demagoguery and desperation in pushing this deal, Obama and Kerry don’t need to sell it at all. There’s nothing the GOP can do to stop it. The purchase has already been made in Congress. Obama and Kerry are getting nasty here not because they think it’s essential to getting Democrats to buy in but because, I think, they simply resent having their diplomatic master work criticized so sharply. It’s personal.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Barack Obama’s Lowest Moment Yet? – John Hinderaker

Today President Obama gave a speech at American University, urging acceptance of his nuclear deal with Iran. It was the usual exercise in deception and demagoguery, and he skated up to the edge of accusing opponents of the deal – a majority of Americans, apparently – of treason.

After some initial reminiscence about the Cold War, Obama leaped right into misrepresenting the agreement’s terms:

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The “prohibition” consists of a pious declaration by Iran which it can repudiate at any time. The agreement contains no provisions that will permanently impede Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons. The provisions that (if adhered to) would materially impede Iran’s nuclear weapons program expire in no more than 15 years.

Next, the president offered up a revisionist history of the war in Iraq–a topic of dubious relevance at best:

[M]any of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Whereas others who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case in favor of the Iran deal–Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example. So what? Next comes a breathtaking series of lies:

I said that America didn’t just have to end that war – we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

No American administration has ever preferred war to diplomacy. The war in Iraq was anything but unilateral, as more than 20 countries participated in the U.S.-led coalition. And the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs was not exaggerated, as we know from the now-public October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. (Nor, as we now know, was that intelligence entirely wrong.)

Obama recites Iraq’s recent history, but leaves out a key point:

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Obama neglects to mention his own role: in 2011 he prematurely withdrew all American troops from Iraq, crowing that Iraq was then “sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” a fact that Vice-President Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements.” Iraq was sovereign and stable but not, as military leaders warned, entirely self-reliant. It was Obama’s needless withdrawal of the last American troops that allowed Iraq to spiral toward chaos and permitted ISIS – the Islamic State in Syria – to move into Iraq. But Obama has never once in his life taken responsibility for anything.

Who is to blame for Iran’s nuclear program? Why, President Bush, of course!

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges – the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb – that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges…

IAEA reports indicate that Iran’s Natanz facility had around 5,500 centrifuges when Obama took office, and over 15,000 by May 2015. With the Fordow facility, Iran now has around 19,000 centrifuges operating. But it’s all Bush’s fault!

As always, Obama misrepresented the terms of the agreement. These are issues we have written about many times, so I won’t address those misrepresentations in detail. But here are a couple:

If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own.

Sheer fantasy. Much of the sanctions relief that Iran most craves can never be taken back–most notably, the $100 billion to $150 billion in frozen funds that will soon flow to Tehran. Further, all commercial deals that are entered into during the period of sanctions relief are excepted from future sanctions.

Even with those huge loopholes, the “snap back” is a fiction. Even U.S. sanctions will not “snap back” automatically; they will have to be reimposed by Congress and implemented over a period of time. We will have no control over whether the E.U. reimposes sanctions. The supposed “snap back” mechanism is limited to U.N. sanctions, and, as I wrote here, it is doubtful whether paragraph 37 of the agreement, the purported snap back provision, would actually cause U.N. sanctions to be reimposed based on the vote of one member of the Security Council.

It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money – revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

This is a very recent and highly dubious talking point. Until the last week or two, as I wrote here, every source I am aware of has long estimated Iran’s frozen assets at $100 billon to $150 billion. In fact, the Treasury Department, which John Kerry cited as the source for the administration’s new number, pegged the frozen assets at “approximately $100 billion” in sworn testimony before a Congressional committee in January of this year. And that is just a down payment on the economic benefit that Iran’s mullahs will receive from the end of sanctions.

No doubt the worst portion of Obama’s speech is the one that has gotten the most attention. Note how Obama walks right up to the line of accusing Republicans in Congress of treason:

Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)

No, but it is what Iran’s rulers believe. Iran’s Supreme Leader frequently leads mobs in chants of “Death to America.” Does Obama think he is kidding?

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)

If Obama had said that the Republican caucus is making common cause with Iran’s hardliners, it would have been an unambiguous accusation of treason. By phrasing it the other way around–the hardliners are making common cause with Republicans–Obama gives himself a slight margin of deniability. But either way, it is a disgusting slander.

It is also delusional. Iran’s hardliners are the regime in power. The mullahs are not aligning themselves with Republicans; on the contrary, they are trumpeting the fact that they got everything they wanted in their negotiations with John Kerry and Barack Obama. But Obama can’t, and won’t, confront that reality. He will just go on slandering his political opponents and lying to the American people.

Barack Obama is a terrible president, but he is a worse man.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
State Department Unaware Of Reports Iran Is Sanitizing Nuclear Sites – Washington Free Beacon

State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said he was unaware of reports that claim Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear site on Wednesday.

Bloomberg reported that Congress has received evidence from the intelligence community that Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear military site at Parchin.

Toner was asked if the State Department has seen the report.

“The U.S. intelligence community has informed of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin in broad daylight days after agreeing to the nuclear deal with world powers,” the reporter said. “The new evidence, which is classified, satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery.”

“I’ve not seen those reports until you just spoke to them,” Toner said. “But, you know, we’ve been very clear that the joint agreement that we plan that you can’t hide nuclear activity. There are traces that remain.”

Toner clarified, saying that he could not elaborate.

“But I can’t speak to that specific instance you’re talking about,” Toner said.

Skeptics of the nuclear agreement have concerns about confidential side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that detail the inspection procedures into Iran’s suspected nuclear sites like Parchin.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.
U.S. SENATE HEARING ON THE OBAMA REGIME’S IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT


……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.

Fox 5 News In San Diego Reports That Barack Obama Will Not Be Charged With Rape (Video)

Local TV Station Airs A Picture Of President Obama… But The Mistake Is Impossible To Miss – The Blaze

No, the president of the United States was not facing rape allegations.

While covering the story of a rape suspect having charges against him dropped on Friday, San Diego TV station KSWB-TV made a painful error: The station aired a picture of President Barack Obama with the story, complete with a “no charges” caption under his photo, the Times of San Diego reported.

.

.
“Yeah, there was an accident when they had an over-the-shoulder” display, KSWB assignment editor Mike Wille told Times of San Diego. “It wasn’t on purpose.”

The Times noted that KSWB did not note or apologize for the error during its newscast.

Watch the segment below:

.

.

.

Leftist Radio Host Threatens To Endanger Public By Calling In False Police Reports When He Sees Legal Gun Possession

Libtalker Mike Malloy Vows To Start Panic If He Sees Open Carry Permit Holder With Gun – Newsbusters

Look no further for a textbook example of what passes for logic from a liberal.

If there’s one thing leftist radio host Mike Malloy really hates, or so he claims, it is suffering from the improper use of firearms. Being a gun owner, he doesn’t hate guns themselves or want them banned, based on what he’s said on his show. More accurately, the thing he seems to hate most is when conservatives own guns. (Audio after the jump)

Malloy, a former CNN news writer and Air America Radio host, seldom lets an hour pass without complaining about a new law in Georgia that allows concealed carry permit holders to bring guns to bars, supermarkets, municipal buildings and some parts of airports.

Those who hold open carry permits and brandish their guns in public are another target of Malloy’s ire, to the point that Malloy recently made this bizarre threat (audio) –

I guess what I’ll do if I’m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I’ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g**-damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they’re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn’t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.

And Mike Malloy’s day will be complete.

.

.
In his brave, tireless efforts to stop senseless injuries and deaths from firearms, Malloy vows to start a panic in a public area – which would easily result in injuries and possibly fatalities. Clearly it has not crossed Malloy’s fevered mind that if he was actually opposed to senseless injuries and deaths, the last thing he would do is suggest what he did. Guess who goes to jail if you shout fire when there is none in a crowded theater, Mike? Diverting police with bogus 911 calls might prevent them from helping those in genuine distress. You really ought to think these things through.

This is what you can expect from a man who has also threatened to shoot an unnamed National Rifle Association board member – another example of Malloy’s meager efforts to cut down on violence.

.

.

Police State Update: Third Person Reports Being Anally Violated By Cops

Stop The Madness: Third Person Reports Being Anally Violated By Police – Daily Caller

A third New Mexico resident is claiming that she was physically abused by police and medical staff who exceeded their authority to search for drugs she never had.

.

The woman’s attorney came forward with her story just a few days after a local news channel reported similar stories involving New Mexico police forcing two suspects to undergo invasive surgery to prove they weren’t carrying drugs. Police used expired and nonexistent warrants to justify the improper and unethical searches, according to KOB-TV 4.

The unnamed woman is being represented by Laura Schaur Ives of the New Mexico chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Schaur told KOB-TV 4 that her client was stopped by police in El Paso, Texas. After a drug-sniffing dog indicated that she might have drugs, police strip-searched her and then allegedly assault her by sticking their fingers into her vagina.

When the on-site search failed to turn up any drugs, police took the woman to University Medical Center of El Paso. There, she was given an X-ray, cat scan and full body search. Medical personnel probed her anus and vagina, according to Schaur.

“They then did a cavity search and they probed her vagina and her anus, they described in the medical records as bi-manual – two-handed,” she said in a statement. “Again, they found nothing.”

Schaur claims that police did not have a warrant to conduct the search.

If this horror story sounds familiar, it’s because two other New Mexico residents were violate by drug-seeking police officers. Timothy Young and David Eckert were pulled over for traffic violations in separate incidents, and were searched on the authority of the same unlicensed drug-sniffing dog. They were then taken to Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, New Mexico, where doctors performed a full battery of invasive medical procedures.

While these incidents involved New Mexico police, the woman who Schaur represents was allegedly handled by Customs and Border Control – suggesting that abusive practices are not limited to a single malicious police department.

All three victims protested their treatment at the hands of police and medical staff and refused to be examined.

Not only were their protestations ignored, but in Eckert’s case, doctors even stuck him with the bill for his own forced colonoscopy.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

ABC News Reports On Massive Chinese Traffic Jam… That Happened Three Years Ago

How Did ABC World News Mess Up This Report So Badly? – Mediaite

This might be one of the goofier examples of sloppy journalism in recent memory.

During ABC’s World News on Thursday evening, anchor Diane Sawyer read a quick story about a massive Chinese traffic jam just outside Beijing, reportedly “now entering its third week.” The traffic has come to such a standstill, Sawyer added, that truckers purchased noodle dishes from roadside villagers. Ultimately, the report concluded, the traffic will end around September 17th when the culprit – some major construction – is scheduled for completion.

.

So what’s wrong with that story? Well, there’s one big problem: That ridiculously large traffic jam happened three years ago.

How did that embarrassing mistake make it all the way to Sawyer’s mouth?

The only 2013-dated articles on this “traffic jam” appear on the India Times website and on The Daily Beast’s “Cheat Sheet” link dump. The former’s write-up says the traffic has been ongoing for only nine days, so clearly that’s not the source. And given the Beast’s popularity in America, this little blurb could be where ABC first spotted the story:

.

It seems as though the Beast mistook the story to be current, but later updated their link-out with a correction: “Editor’s note: The traffic jam described in this news summary occured [sic] in August 2010.”

So let’s assume an ABC producer found the story there, but saw it before the Beast updated to reflect the actual date. They would still have had to completely ignore the time and date on the actual CBC article containing many of the details Sawyer reported on air.

How, then, did ABC obtain the oddly-specific information about the jam having gone on for three weeks? Looks like they saw the reports (again, ignoring all the 2010 timestamps) and saw that the traffic began on August 14th. And hey, it’s September 5th. So that means it’s been going on almost three whole weeks!

And how did ABC find information about it expecting to end September 17? The biggest source for that is a Wall Street Journal article – again, from 2010 – that notes the 17th as the construction’s end date.

In other words: Reporting this story likely took a producer eyeing not one, but multiple articles. And somehow… missing… the time and date… on each… and every one of them.

Amazingly, ABC News itself actually covered the story when it first occurred.

Another question: Who obtained those photographs of the Chinese traffic jam without noticing they were from 2010?

Watch the report below, via ABC News:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.