The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights

In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution:

The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:

First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless.  If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?

Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.

Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.

Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?

Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?

If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.

Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?

How perverse.

Pervasive (il)liberal bias hides the tilt, or When the world's crooked, the straight look biased

I recall speaking with a friend (quite a few years ago) about media bias. He thought that Fox News was slanted to the Right. I shared that Fox News is pretty center of the road; it just looks biased in view of the rest of Media's overwhelming (il)liberal tilt.

Since when is patriotism a partisan issue? How can opposing the burning, crushing, and tearing to pieces of the innocent in the womb by their own mothers be "extreme"? Liberals lock their doors; shouldn't our borders be secure? They arm their security; what makes them and their children more deserving of protection than our own? And how is the self-evident truth that the human body was created for male-female unions suddenly "hate"?

The Left thinks that jihadists merit understanding, inclusion, negotiations, and access to nuclear weapons, but when a member the leftist media asks about American citizens' essential, God-given, unalienable rights?

You should know better.

And the Republicans are useless (or worse), giving the Tyrant-in-Chief everything he wants.

Some good observations on the Left's divine right of kings, from here:

The most maddening aspect of the polarization debate is the hidden presumption of liberalism’s right to rule. Authors such as Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann attribute most of the polarization in Washington to the Republican Party, which they and other observers argue has become too extreme. This will come as news to grassroots conservatives, who overwhelmingly believe that Republicans in the capital haven’t been nearly extreme enough in opposing President Obama’s governmental gigantism. It’s an implausible case, as there is little in conservative ideology today that you can’t find in Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative or in Ronald Reagan’s famous “Time for Choosing” speech of 50 years ago. The difference today is that Republicans have won some landslide elections and lately a majority in Congress, and this galls liberals, whose real answer to polarization is conservatism’s unconditional surrender.

Turning fiends into friends: The bad medicine of Barack Obama

One might assume it took quite a presidential beer summit to turn those demoniacal health insurance companies into allies of the Demagogue-in-Chief. But make no mistake, it was greenbacks, not six packs, that turned fiends into friends.

And it's not unusual. Donor helps politician get elected. Politician makes law favorable to donor. Donor helps politician get reelected, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's a never-ending cycle of corruption, like Poe's tragedy:

That motley drama—oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.

It's a perverse thing, studying something in order to learn how to undo it. Like the serial killer who studies anatomy, or the pyromaniacal fire-fighter, or the liberal educator. Many of our elected officials are experts in the law (not the least of whom is the "smartest president ever," the Constitutional professor in the White House). All of them swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet they use their knowledge of law, government, politics, and human nature to serve not We the People, but themselves.

Barack Obama is to the Constitution as Jack the Ripper was to the ladies of Whitechapel. Which makes the president Barack ... the Ripper.

And the electorate wonders what happened.

Posted here:

"The administration waived conflict-of-interest laws ...."

Of course they do.

Despite his best efforts to disarm and bankrupt the Republic, the president has provided one valuable service to the nation: He has dispelled forever (except to the most deluded) the notion that liberals are noble public servants who care only about helping the "common man." They are as corrupt and cruel and greedy for wealth, power, and status as the most demonic Conservative of leftist fantasy.

Democrats today (and a lot of Republicans) are nothing more than professional campaigners who care only about maintaining their power and position no matter the cost to the rest of us. They live like kings off our backs while promising to the dull and greedy crumbs for which we all have to pay.

And so will our children.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson

Not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama

What good is all the processing power in the world if you don't have any sense?

When Silicon Valley -- and Hollywood and other multibillionaires -- fund the destruction of the Republic, one small voice might not be much to get excited over.

But if dissent against Dear Leader crops up in even liberal strongholds, then perhaps there is hope for the nation.

It's good to see that not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama, from here and here.

Despite "stockpiles" of Saddam's WMD in the hands of jihadists, the Left still blame Bush

The "irrational" Left is at it again, trying to provide cover for Obama's malfeasance by blaming his predecessor:

McCain is right; it could have been avoided. If, in the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush had treated the arguments of Feith, McCain, and other advocates of the Iraq War with the disdain they deserved, we (and the Iraqis) wouldn’t be where we are today.

Iraq is imploding because Sunni and Shiite have warred against each other for more than a thousand years. This is what Islam does.

So, yes. Put the blame where it belongs. Some of it on a president who didn't know and didn't learn but had to do something in light of 9/11. (And he was right about Saddam's "stockpiles.") Pile a more generous helping on his successor who, being the "smartest president ever" and a(n allegedly) former Muslim, must have known what would occur but abandoned anyway gains made in Iraq at unfathomable cost in blood (and treasure).

But the bulk of the responsibility for the current "mess" in Iraq goes to the ideology that motivates so much death and destruction: Islam.

(Allegedly) former Nazi Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominates covert Nazi convert to head CIA

You just can't make this stuff up.

First, Obama's obliterating the Constitution and bankrupting and disarming the Republic. Then, he nominates a flaming anti-Semite for Secretary of Defense.

Now, he wants a compromised and closeted convert to command our covert collection of critical combatant contemplation and communication:

former Marine platoon commander, FBI swat team leader, and counterterrorism & Muslim Brotherhood expert John Guandolo broke last week [...] that John Brennan, President Obama's nominee to head the CIA, converted to Islam while CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

In John's analysis, Brennan's conversion represents the culmination of a campaign against Brennan by a foreign intelligence service. Giving Brennan the most charitable benefit of the doubt, this reveals Brennan's susceptibility to manipulation. By itself, the secret circumstances of this conversion to the religion that is also the basis for jihad war to entrench the totalitarian legal-political system of sharia should be troubling. But coupled with Brennan's activities as the president's top counterterrorism adviser -- frequent, close work with Islamic organizations (e.g., ISNA) that operate on behalf of terrorists groups (Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) -- Brennan should certainly and without question not be confirmed.

Will our lawmakers, our representatives, our last, best and only hope, act on this information, or even seek an account of his activities from Brennan himself? Last week, no senator put a single question to Brennan regarding his associations with MB groups, his (at best) lame public statements regarding Al Qaeda's ideology (nothing to do with Islam, in Brennan's view), or his touting of Hezbollah's "moderate elements" and "legitimate" mechanisms.

Great job, America. You elected Hitler to end the Holocaust.

Obama bin Lyin': President kept out of decision to eliminate bin Laden because he vetoed three earlier opportunities to do so

President Obama continually hypes UBL's demise, but really, what choice did he have? Who wouldn't have authorized the elimination of the single person most symbolic of 9/11?

It turns out, Obama himself, three times according to this article:

Obama “did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, until after the helicopters with SEAL Team 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.”

The source said Obama was notified “at the golf course … which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operations room event.”

The source told Stand Up America that Panetta “was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid.”

“He signed the ‘execute orders’ with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.”

The source explained the White House “was closed out of the decision because the president, through Valerie Jarrett, had turned down two or three other earlier proposals.”

Panetta, Vallely’s source reported, “and his covert planning team were extremely frustrated at all the denials, so saw the opportunity slipping away, as implausible as it seems.”

The report said Panetta convinced his other principals to make the decision and received their full-fledged support but the president, according to the official, “remained clueless on the mission.”

“This tremendously serious and sensitive information was relayed by a source who has been very frustrated with the continued dishonesty within the White House,” Vallely reported.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, previously has called for “We the People” to stop the nation’s “progressive socialist, treasonous death march.”

He graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961. He served in theaters in Europe and the Pacific Rim and saw two tours of combat duty in Vietnam.

CBS has reported that “Obama’s decision to send operatives after Osama bin Laden” was described by White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as “one of the most gutsiest calls of any president.”

However, the Mail Online in London reported a book by Richared Miniter documented that three “kill” missions were canceled by Obama in January, February and March of 2011.

The SEAL mission was in May 2011.

Miniter reported it was Jarrett who kept urging Obama to cancel plans to get bin Laden.

Unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be distressed at a video pointing out what their own texts claim regarding Muhammad

Would the distress Nazis might feel at Hitler's being mocked be "entirely understandable"?

In the same way, the discomfort Muslims (claim to) feel over an internet video is neither acceptable nor excusable. By saying that it is, you're not only legitimizing Islam's prohibitions against any criticism of Muhammad, Islam, and Qur'an (even when truthful), but you're betraying those millions of innocent non-Muslims living under the constant threat of Islamic violence and discrimination.

(And that's not far-removed from the Obama administration and its propagandists' absurd claim that the video "ignited" Muslim rage, which is as nonsensical as claiming that reporting about the Holocaust caused the Holocaust.)

Have you seen the video/trailer? Though it is poorly made, its claims regarding the genocidal pedophile Muhammad's atrocities are accurate, as they come straight from Islam's own "sacred" texts.

So, unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be upset at a video pointing out the words and deeds of Muhammad, whom they otherwise exalt as Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct" and the "Ideal Man."

Democrats rip away the mask; finally admit their contempt for God, Jews, the unborn, your children, and you

Which makes them a natural fit for Islam (and unfit for citizenship, let alone public office). If you are a decent person and a Democrat, you can no longer be both.

One of the great things about the Drudge Report is that often even a quick glance will provide revealing snapshots of national and global trends. The screen capture below shows all that needs to be said about the malice, greed, mendacity, and perverseness of today's Democratic Party.

This is not the party of even Jimmy Carter, who recently expressed his concern at the Democratic Party's becoming the party of abortion. (Speaking of Mr. Carter, he must delight at the Obama presidency in one respect: He's no longer America's Worst President Ever.)

This is the Democrats' creed, their vision for America:

Hostility toward God (but not Allah, I'll bet).

Typical Liberal Jew-hatred (a perfect fit for Islam).

Using your tax dollars to fund the slaughter of our children (an American holocaust).

Sixteen trillion dollars in debt (but give Obama four more years, and this time, he'll do something about. Honestly, he will. For real. What are you, racist?)

Record food stamp usage (because it's hard to vote on an empty stomach. Just remember where that came from).

There was a time when such positions would incur public wrath. Now it's a national political party. Is that what you want America to be?

As if there was any doubt. At least now there's no more pretending.

When decent Americans are classified as potential terrorists and treated like criminals by their own government, but Muslims are shielded from any real scrutiny (even just basic fact-telling) whatsoever -- despite claiming fealty to a god demanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert -- then you know that the enemy is not only within the gates, they're in control.

As destructive as Franklin Roosevelt was to the Constitution and American Liberty, even he would be demonized by today's Democrats as a right-wing, religious extremist. And JFK? Clearly, a Nazi. And don't even think about giving any sort of credence to Colonial proto-terrorists like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison. As for Lincoln? Reagan? Republicans.

This is what happens when citizens allows the ignorant, perverse, and craven to gain control over government, media, and education. You end up with malignant narcissists on parade and in power, on your dime.

Congrats, tyrants, there's a political party just for you, and now, it's official.

Update 2:03 AM, 9/5/12: According to Drudge, a DNC video declares: "The government is the only thing we all belong to."

Of course. Now we're just one or two steps away from Democrats informing us that we exist at their discretion and for their benefit.

Cake, anyone?

To liberals, "freedom" and "justice" are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible

You know, if stimuli are so good for terrorist states, corporations, public employee unions, and other campaign contributors, why don't leftists just give every American citizen – and illegals, too, why discriminate? – a billion dollars?

No leftist will answer that, since then they'd have to address why politicians, corporations, thieves, the lazy, and terrorists are more deserving of American dollars than those who actually earn them.

Liberals don't believe in freedom or justice. To them, those are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible.

For Obama, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is today, while Romney endorses the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the final word on all things Constitutional

Whether it's King George or King Barry, "tyranny" by any other name would smell as rank.*

Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.

King Barry will be hiring thousands of new tax people to enforce "the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years." And you won't get your refund until you provide proof of insurance.

It's bad enough that when you're pulled over you have to show proof of auto insurance. That's the government punishing you for driving. This is being pulled over for proof of health insurance. That's government punishing you for living.

If the Obamacare "tax" is really a penalty (which it is), then the law is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force free people to buy a particular product. Misdefining "penalty" as "tax" is how Chief Justice Roberts justified siding with the deranged half of the Court in upholding Obamacare, and its how Obama's liars lawyers argued it before the Court, all of which is an admission not only that Obama knows that the law is unconstitutional, but that he thinks you're stupid.

Why is Obama changing definitions again? Because he knows that the American people are sick of taxes, and we will not tolerate 13,000 pages of new taxation. If we opposed socialized medicine when it carried with it a "penalty," how much more despised will it be now that the "penalty" is a massive tax increase?

And there is Romney's problem: He's right to call it a "penalty" (liberals, like all tyrants, love to punish those who disobey them) and not a "tax," but his handlers want him to call it a "tax" because they think that will make it easier to defeat Obama. They think that We the People are incapable of understanding Obama's shell game. But if it wasn't obvious before, it should be clear now that Obama's the operator, the politicians, media, and Supreme Court justices are the lookouts, muscle, and shills, and the American people are the mark.

Romney would be best off calling the penalty what it is and not endorsing the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the "final word" on all matters constitutional. We the People, judging in accord with our nation's founding principles as stated in our Declaration of Independence and enumerated in our Constitution, are the final word. Mitt should explain Obama and his fellow Socialists' willful, condescending deception and vow to repeal it.

How will the Republic survive when its only alternative to King George is afraid to state plainly that the emperor is wearing Marxist underwear?

Obama silent while spokesman denies mandate is a tax:

Anchor Soledad O’Brien asked LaBolt: “His spokesman…said it’s a penalty. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. What does he believe?”

“That it’s a penalty,” LaBolt answered.  “You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court…”

“So then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.

“That’s right,” said LaBolt.  “He said that it’s a penalty.  You saw our arguments before the Court.”

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

*Apologies to Messrs. Ramirez and Shakespeare

Roberts' treasonous plunge left a nail in someone's coffin

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Well, we've given our political elites enough chain to hang someone.

Either the Republic will go the way of Greece, or this unconscionable, unconstitutional power-grab by our elected tyrants will motivate citizens to reclaim their Constitutional rights and beat back Cerberus into its proper, specified limits.

Liebau notes Obama's subversive mendacity here:

1. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton saying that he would not support an individual mandate.

2. After he won, he said he would support an individual mandate -- but it wasn't a tax.

3. In the Supreme Court, to make his legislation constitutional, he instructed his Solicitor General to argue that it was a tax, after all -- thereby violating his pledge against a middle class tax increase.

We are all Belgium now: B. Hussein Obama, America's $27 trillion* mistake

Samson's cut his own hair, and Delilah wasn't even cute this time, just a scrawny illegal immigrant from Kenya with a teleprompter and a dream.

America's credit rating has been dropped to AA+ status, equal with Belgium's and below England and Australia's. But don't worry: Obama's work is not done. Let him be clear: He'll not rest until we're Greece.

Standard and Poor's merely acknowledged the truth about how absurdly unsustainable is our national debt, and what is Obama's response? Not something honorable, like resignation and an apology. Not even an "Oops." Instead, S & P's made a "two trillion dollar mistake."

No, the mistake is America's.

Even if the federal government's total spending commitment will be $48 trillion instead of $50 trillion, what difference does two trillion make? The chains of oppressive, enslaving debt are still bound to our children and our children's children for generations, and they're still unbearable. This economic disaster was completely foreseeable -- and avoidable -- but the American people continued to elect and re-elect thieves and destroyers.

When every act an executive performs undermines his organization, only two possible explanations for that malfeasance exist: titanic, colossal, unprecedented, cataclysmic incompetence or intent.

Regardless of why, Obama and his fellow statists have been working diligently to bankrupt and disarm America, and they've succeeded now in crippling our economy, an achievement King George III, Hitler, Khrushchev, and Usama bin Laden only dreamt of.

How much time do we have left? Why is no one calling for impeachment? Where is the outrage, America? No one's going to save us from ourselves; our enemies are drooling at our demise and our rivals are grinning smugly behind our backs.

How much more evidence does the electorate need -- do leftists themselves need -- that Socialism/Communism/Marxism is suicidally destructive? Whom do they think will protect them when the savages are at the door? When you bind the strong man, who is left to protect you?

We had a Republic, for as a long as we kept it.

*The current $14.5 trillion debt + the $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling (how long do you think it will take our elected tyrants to squander that?) + the additional $10 trillion in 10 years = $27 trillion in suicidal debt

Obama the grinch that tried to steal Social Security

It's surprising to see a Democrat say anything negative about the Usurper-in-Chief. It's shocking to see a Democrat say something fair regarding Republicans.

What is not surprising is that Obama would propose cutting Social Security (since the meetings were held behind closed doors, he probably thought that he could demonize Republicans with their acceptance of his indecent proposal). After all, he's nearly destroyed the Republic, on the verge of stealing from our posterity and the world the greatest civilization in the history of Man.

Democrat Representative John Conyers reveals that Obama, not Republicans, proposed cutting Social Security:

The Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Mich.) said that President Barack Obama proposed cuts to Social Security in the debt limit negotiations, not congressional Republicans.

"Because everybody’s criticizing republicans. Guess what? Every Republican that’s in the Congress was legitimately elected like all of us – that was a choice that voters made,” said Conyers when speaking with the Out of Poverty Caucus at the Capitol on Wednesday."