maddogs hideaway

Anthony Marshall got the news last week.

It wasn’t what the son of the late multi-millionaire philanthropist Brooke  Astor wanted to hear, but it was exactly what I wanted to hear.

He’d been convicted of the crimes after a jury trial in 2009 and was free on  appeal. He hoped to avoid prison time by challenging issues of his conviction,  because of his advanced age and health and because he’s a first-time  offender.

The court did not agree, although no date was set for incarceration and his  attorneys might seek a bail extension for him while they pursue other legal  remedies.

The court also upheld the conviction of Marshall’s trust and estate lawyer,  Francis X. Morrissey Jr. He was charged with forging Mrs. Astor’s signature on a  will change. He’s now been disbarred.

Anthony Marshall, the heir to the Astor fortune, was caring for his mother in  her later years as she was deteriorating from Alzheimer’s disease.

He was supposed to be managing her affairs and her estate, and he  did that, but to his own financial advantage while at the same time subjecting  his aged mother to what, by any standard, could be called abuse.

Brooke Astor was living in her New York apartment, supposedly attended by  helpers but frequently not allowed visitors or calls. But reports leaked out  from family and close friends that Mrs. Astor was a virtual prisoner in her own  room, in urine-soaked bedding and clothing and existing in squalid  conditions.

As she lost her hold on reality due to her illness, she was a perfect target  for abuse – physical and financial.

And in the realm of financial, the money was there for the taking. Mrs. Astor  changed her will several times during this period, which transferred tens of  millions of dollars and property to Marshall. It is doubtful she knew what she  was signing.

All the while, Marshall was controlling her property and running up  questionable bills and payments, often to his own wife and paying expenses on  her home and property. He also purchased a yacht and maintained it and was  accused of taking items from Mrs. Astor’s apartment and selling them.

It was in these areas he was charged with 17 counts of grand larceny and  mismanagement of business affairs and expenses.

The Astor name is legendary in New York society as well as in the area of  philanthropy. The family fortune from fur trading and real estate goes back to  John Jacob Astor, and the Astor name is seen on buildings and places across the  city.

Vincent Astor was his great-great grandson, and he was Brooke’s third  husband. She spent millions of her legacy from him supporting many worthy causes  in New York, including scholarships and other philanthropic donations to the  arts, libraries and museums.

She lived a long and active life and died of pneumonia in 2007. She was  105.

But by that time, the sordid story of her latter years at the hands of her  son and his wife, as well as her being bilked by them of an estimated $60  million and their attempt to get even more from her estate after her death, had  dragged the Astor name through the tabloids. Her grandson, Philip Marshall, sued  Anthony alleging abuse of the then 104-year-old Astor.

Mrs. Astor would have been appalled and disgusted.

When I first learned about and wrote in WND about the reported abuse of  Brooke Astor, I was struck that it didn’t make any difference whether the  elderly person was some average person of modest means or someone as financially  secure and well known as Mrs. Astor.

It illustrated to me, that age is a leveling factor all of us face, if we’re  fortunate enough to reach that milestone.

But when that time comes and is marred by illness or other debilities, the  person becomes dependent on others for care and protection.

Unfortunately, that’s when money comes into the picture along with  old-fashioned greed. It doesn’t have to be millions, as in the Astor case, it  only need be that one person has some and someone else wants it – even if it’s a  family member or worse, a child.

I wrote that I saw the same thing happen in my extended family and at the  time, I was naïve enough to be shocked and surprised.

The surprise has worn off.  It happens too often, and judging by the  hundreds of e-mails I received after my WND column, including from Mrs. Astor’s  grandson, it’s not uncommon.

In fact, after the decision last week, the Manhattan District Attorney  released a statement, as reported in the New York Post, referring to the abuse:  “This trial underscored the importance of prosecuting elder abuse, particularly  financial fraud perpetrated by those close to the victims.”

Such abuse is really a crime against the humanity of the old person and  deserves more attention. Elders are ripped off and mistreated every day.

So, if all goes well, old Anthony, will cool his heels in the slammer for up  to three years.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, even though, in my opinion, three years  isn’t nearly enough.

As if the stubbornly high unemployment rate and rising costs of gasoline and  food weren’t enough, yesterday marked the third anniversary of another direct  assault on America’s working families. It was this time in 2010 that President  Obama’s singular first-term legislative “accomplishment” was passed, and  Obamacare became law. Now three years later, implementation of the law threatens  American families with massive premium rate hikes and devastating job  losses.

The president said he would lower insurance costs for consumers, but the  opposite is happening. Health insurers are projecting Obamacare will increase  the cost of coverage by 20-100 percent next January when the law really starts  to kick in. Yes, that’s right: For some people, health-care costs will double.  The CEO of Aetna went as far as to say the price hikes would cause “premium rate  shock.”

Obamacare imposes $700 billion in new taxes over 10 years. One stark example  of this heavy tax burden is the health insurance excise tax. The National  Federation of Independent Business estimates this tax will increase the cost of  family coverage $5,000 by 2020 and is working hard to repeal it.

In addition to the tax burden, Americans will have to pay the heavy price of  government interference. One of the touted benefits of the law is it provides  coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. However, it does this by  guaranteeing coverage and by making healthy customers pay as much as those who  are sick. This creates an incentive for people to stop paying for insurance  until they get sick, which will ultimately raise the cost for everyone. Can you  imagine what house insurance would cost if you could wait until your home burned  before buying a policy?

The “individual mandate” was supposed to solve this problem, but the penalty  was set far below the cost of actually paying for insurance. So the destructive  incentive remains, and we get the worst of both worlds – exploding cost  increases and a new tax on Americans.

It’s not just rising costs Americans face – Obamacare is beginning to cost  jobs, too. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare  will result in an estimated 800,000 fewer U.S. jobs.

Across the country business owners are experiencing Obamacare’s effects  firsthand. The employer mandate and penalties apply to businesses with 50 or  more full-time workers. Therefore, companies are figuring out ways to get by  with more part-time and contract workers. The owner of Automation Systems Inc.,  an Illinois company with 37 employees, says he wants to hire more people but  can’t because once the business crosses the 50-employee threshold, it will have  to pay $40,000 in penalties, plus $2,000 for each additional employee.

This affects an area where we can least afford to lose jobs: manufacturing.  Of America’s 250,000 manufacturers, about 200,000 had fewer than 20 employees in  2010. These are companies that could grow and form the core of many small towns  and communities in America. But they likely won’t be able to under this law. We  cannot afford to let that happen. Rising costs and job loss are the last thing  America needs right now.

Instead, we need policies that help Americans keep more of their hard-earned  money. We need to help relieve their tax burdens by expanding child tax credits  and to promote health care they can own and control by raising health savings  account contribution limits. We need to increase affordability for struggling  families with a refundable health-care tax credit.

We must enact meaningful medical liability reform to increase access and  reduce added costs and inefficiencies from defensive medicine.

In trying to help people who have uninsurable conditions, we must acknowledge  that the magnitude, demographics and root causes of the uninsured problem differ  from state to state. To the extent government can address the issue, the answer  does not lie in a one-size-fits-all federal government scheme imposed on states  and citizens, but in state leaders, working with medical providers, employers,  consumers and insurers to design state-based solutions.

We should reduce and streamline government regulations that force valuable  resources to be spent on managing red tape rather than patient care. Free-market  innovations like the patient-centered medical home model hold real promise. This  is a collaborative approach by health care providers, insurers and patients  focused on achieving improved health outcomes, enhanced patient experience and  reduced costs.

In a 2010 pilot program involving diabetic patients, 809 participants were  compared to a control group of similar patients. The results were amazing. The  patient-centered medical home group had 10.7 percent fewer hospital admissions,  36.3 percent fewer inpatient hospital days and 32.2 percent fewer emergency room  visits. These improved health outcomes were achieved while the total medical  costs for these patients were reduced 6.5 percent.

As the economy limps along and Americans feel the pain, I hope on this third  anniversary of Obamacare we can take a minute to look at the damage it will do  and commit to do something now to reverse it.

if you can’t share excitement, you can at least study it.

Media of ours and friends of mine are hailing the “success” of Obama’s visit  to Israel as if it were as joyous as the liberation of Paris, as game-changing  as the nuclear bomb and as important as the unconditional surrender of the bad  guys in World War II. Me? I thought it was pretty cool.

Barack Obama until just the other day was the most anti-Israel president in  America’s history. His idolaters wail, “What a leader we’ve got! He was  anti-Israel, then suddenly he changes and, wow, look how hopes for the  Middle East are spiraling upward!”

This is what’s so numbing about the Obama phenomenon. When Romney loses to  Obama, the with-it crowd likes to remind Republicans, “Times change.  Demographics change.” When Obama twice wins the Jewish vote, after  proving his anti-Israel DNA, nobody talks of “change.” Change is robbed of the  credit. All credit then goes to “this charismatic young genius who knows how to  carry his base and everybody else’s base, too!”

Try pointing out that younger American Jews are also vulnerable to a  magnetism different from that of their more Holocaust-and-jihad-aware elders; point out that younger generations shed loyalty like snakes shed skin,  and you’re suddenly a racist denying Obama his due.

I wish I didn’t have to keep returning to Egypt’s “Museum of Victory”  example, but an ungenerous world offers no alternative. Between Cairo Airport  and the Nile Hilton, there’s a “Victory Museum” dedicated to the Egyptian defeat  in the 1973 Yom Kippur War – on the level! President Franklin D.  Roosevelt once told New York’s Jewish Rep. Sol Bloom, “I am tired of hearing the  whining of Jews.”

You don’t have to be Martin Luther King to have a dream, and you don’t have  to be Franklin Roosevelt to be tired of something. I get tired of Obama’s  defeats being energetically presented as victories, and I dream of a change!

Does it ever occur to anyone that Obama shifted his Israeli stance because he  was beaten? Obama not only failed to cause Netanyahu’s defeat at the Israeli  elections, his ratings are sinking and, except for his back-pocket dwellers, the  whole world sees his policy is a failure in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen  and Iran. Only those Sunni-dominated countries that need a strong American ally  and have no choice but to pretend America is still credible, namely Jordan and  Saudi Arabia, still strike up the band when Obama’s plane lands.

Israel, not Obama, was the big winner last week. Remember now the stage  magician who said, “Notice that at no point do my fingers leave my hands! Has  Israel given up one square inch of new territory? Has Israel stopped or  dismantled one Israeli house or even garage in the disputed-but-not-disputable  Israeli territories. Is any such move as the above even expectable? The only  “Obama victory” was Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s airport “apology” to  Turkish leader Recep Erdogan for killing nine Turks enroute to attack Israel by  breaking the blockade of arms to Hamas in Gaza. If Israel apologized to every  enemy enroute to attack her, she’d be in the same kind of perpetual apology as  the Tibetans are in perpetual prayer. If this act made Obama great, then Israel  must be greater than we think. Netanyahu’s apology was an act of “rakhmones” –  something between pity and charity – so Obama didn’t have to leave  empty-hearted.

There are 12 Jewish senators, all Democrats. Chuck Hagel’s anti-Jewish and  anti-Israel record would glare through even the darkest desert night. But all 12  of those senators voted for Hagel. That’s what Israelis are smiling at.

A European Jew was once hectoring an American Jew on all the great  achievements of European Jews. “Are you aware we had synagogues in our major  European cities before Columbus discovered America? All our great Jewish  scholars were European. All our great Jewish liturgical collections are in  Europe. What do you American Jews have better than we European Jews?” asked the  <snip>y European.

“Christians,” answered the American Jew simply. “We American Jews have the  greatest Christians that Jews have ever been fortunate enough to live  among.”

And which senators arose in the effort to smite anti-Semite Chuck  Hagel? They didn’t have names like Blumenthal, Schumer and Lautenberg. They had  names like Graham, Ayotte and McCain.

If you see Chuck Hagel, congratulate him. Tell him how much he’s done for the  Jewish people just by not being one.

America is facing a potential financial crisis that, according to some, is a  fiscal cliff that could have devastating long-term consequences for American  businesses, large and small, employment, our international credit rating and  even the stability of the dollar, all of which could have a dramatic impact on  “We the People.”

Apparently, Congress is taking steps to offset the pending crises. The U.S.  Senate, after a 13-hour marathon voting session, voted “overwhelmingly” (50-49)  to pass a budget. The narrow margin occurred because some up-for-re-election  Democrat senators sided with Republicans in voting against the first budget to  pass that chamber in four years. I know many of you will be shocked (or  relieved, based on your political leanings) to learn it included almost $1  trillion in new taxes. Not to worry, it only affects evil rich people; you know,  the ones who own businesses and hire people.

They, no doubt, included a restriction on executive golfing excursions. As  noted by Rep. Gohmert, R-Texas, Obama’s recent golfing trip to Florida would  have saved as much as the furloughing of 341 federal employees.

Perhaps they included an addendum regarding first family trips. According to  Judicial Watch, “a recent trip to Spain in 2010 by Michelle Obama, family, and  staff cost taxpayers $467,585 and a trip by the first lady and family to South  Africa and Botswana last year cost $424,142 for the flight and crew  alone.”This doesn’t include first daughter Malia Obama’s  $115,500 spring break trip to Mexico.

Lest some readers of this column think I am implying President Obama does not  care about the fiscal issues facing us, let me include an interesting  item I discovered on the Internet recently: “The president interrupted his  Hawaii vacation for six days to negotiate the fiscal cliff in  Washington. All told, he spent roughly 40 hours on Air Force One flying between  D.C. and Hawaii.”

How concerned was he? Well, it costs approximately $180-185,000 an hour to  operate Air Force One. Assuming $185,000 (government always costs top dollar),  he spent $7,400,000 of his money to get back to look after you. (Oops, sorry!  That was your money, wasn’t it?)

I am sure, since both conservatives (for support) and liberals (for  anti-conservative ammo) listen to Glenn Beck, they are most likely aware of this  radio transcript posted by Beck Dec. 5, 2012:

“Every year taxpayers in England have to spend $57.8 million for the first  family of Great Britain to make sure that everything is maintained and  everything is taken care of and their security and everything else, $57.8  million. And the people in England are upset about it.

“How much did we pay our royal family? How much did it take to maintain our  royal family, the Obamas, just last year? Now, this is really interesting,  especially as we come up for another vacation for the Obamas. This one is going  to cost us $4 million. This vacation in Hawaii for Christmas is going to cost  you $4 million. How much did we spend last year? Remember, the royal family cost  $57.8 million. Would you be stunned if I told you it was $50 million? Would you  be bowled over if it was $100 million? How much do we spend? The total last  year, a little higher than $57.8 million.

“So what was it? $60 million? No. $100 million? Nope. $250 million? Not even  close. The answer: $1.4 billion.“

The current administration is obviously concerned; NBC News reported that  “the canceled White House tours save the Secret Service around $74,000 a week  and would save around $2 million by the end of the fiscal year. Some 37 Secret  Service officers are employed to staff the tours.”

Washington is determined to do something about it. Witness the charges and  counter-charges, debates and arguments raging in both houses of Congress about  tax cuts, higher taxes, fair shares, balanced budgets and now  “sequestration.” For Pete’s sake, what is “sequestration?”

According to Auburn.edu, sequestration was “originally a legal term  referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by  an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the  property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership  can be resolved.”

In a monarchy or dictatorship, there is no need to consult with anyone except  the reigning potentate or his closest advisers as to the generation and  disposition of revenues. The king and his court neither have limits on their  terms of office nor can they be questioned as to their intent. The people are  essentially chattel and are subject to the whims of their rulers, who do what  that want, when they want, the way they want.

I have a question: Since the president and Congress have no money, own no  property and earn no private capital by their own efforts, whose money are they  spending and whose valuable property [is] being taken into custody – and  locked away for “safekeeping” – to “prevent the property from being disposed of  or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved?”

Traveling to Israel on his “new charm offensive” with his leftist and  Botox-injected secretary of state, John Kerry, our so-called president sought to  keep the coffers of Jewish money and votes flowing for the Democratic Party by  making it appear that he is a reliable friend of the Hebrew state, such that the  United States will come to Israel’s defense should the Islamic Republic of Iran,  the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and other hostile terrorist  states and groups attempt soon to annihilate, as they have vowed, the land of  Moses, King David and Jesus.

However, undercutting the “mullah in chief’s” sincerity even before he  arrived in Tel Aviv was Obama’s televised interview with Israeli television,  during which he claimed that his fellow Muslim mullahs in Tehran were over a  year away from building an atomic bomb, which they have threatened repeatedly to  use to annihilate Israel and the great Satan, the United States. Notwithstanding  that this foreign intelligence “revelation” is obviously contrived and false –  as Iran has by more reliable and believable Israeli accounts already passed the  nuclear red line with regard to having the capability to quickly assemble and  build a bomb (see this  report) – it constitutes yet another illegal leak of U.S. national security  information by Obama. Even more important, the “leak” was intended to undercut  Prime Minister Netanyahu – who had previously pressed for joint Israeli-American  military action this spring to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, before Obama  even arrived in Israel.

Coupled with this stunt, upon Obama’s arrival in Israel, the great usurper  arranged to be greeted by Israeli President Shimon Peres, who is a fellow  socialist and a bitter rival of Netanyahu and his Likud Party. In a public  ceremony televised worldwide, Peres, who has no real power other than to be a  figurehead, proceeded to fawn over Obama, heaping praise on him as a great  friend of the Jewish state and then awarding him a medal for all he has done. In  this way, Obama’s socialist comrade Peres was used to again embarrass and box in  Netanayhu, who has clashed with Obama over the last four years, thereby  undercutting the planned negotiations with the prime minister over taking out  the Iranian nuclear program. Peres and Obama also intended to undercut the prime  minister’s practical resistance to a quick two-state solution to the Palestinian  problem – promoted by Obama and Peres – which would allow for a Palestinian  state on the West Bank, a terrorist-controlled dagger in the side of the Jewish  state. The display was sickening, as Obama looked on devilishly.

Netanyahu – who, with his conservative Likud Party, recently took a hit  during the recent elections in January and now has a very weak hold on his prime  ministership – then proceeded to roll over and himself heap praise on Obama as  Israel’s greatest friend, having been politically outflanked by his American and  Israeli rivals. As a result, both the Israeli public and Jewry worldwide were  treated to an attempted fraud – as both Obama and high Israeli officials backed  away from committing to take any immediate forceful action to stop Iran’s  nuclear program and instead engaged in political “sex.”

In short, all parties, Obama, Peres and Netanyahu, disgraced and disserved  their own people by attempting to lull them to sleep on the immediate threat of  an Iranian nuclear Holocaust.

No matter what progress Republicans may make in electoral politics over the  coming years, it will be difficult to roll back the steady march of liberalism  that has taken place inside our cultural, bureaucratic and legal institutions –  from academia to regulatory agencies to the Department of Justice – but we have  to try.

A good place to start would be to oppose Obama’s radical appointees, the  latest being his appointment for secretary of labor, Thomas Perez.

The same phenomenon occurs throughout the nation’s regulatory bureaucracies.  Liberals have managed to place so many ideologically charged people inside  powerful administrative agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency,  that these institutions tend to be radicalized from the bottom up. The radicals  pursue their radical agenda no matter how out of phase it is with the will of  the majority of Americans – as if the majority even has a clue or has time to  apprise itself as to the kinds of things going on.

But it’s not just that we have a disproportionate number of leftists  populating our institutions and agencies. This imbalance wouldn’t matter so much  if their every action weren’t driven by ideology and if they played by the  rules. But they often see their calling as being not so much to perform their  assigned tasks as it is to use their positions to effect radical societal  changes.

They don’t have the same reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law  as conservatives. They view things through an ideological prism and act in  deference to their ideology and their political ends more than do their  conservative counterparts. They see themselves as activist agents for change, as  crusaders with the lofty goal of advancing an agenda so morally superior that  they don’t think twice about bending and twisting rules and selectively  interpreting laws and regulations to serve their agenda.

These radicals will continue to pursue their mischief irrespective of the  political appointees overseeing their operations, but let’s not fool ourselves;  the appointees do matter – some do more than others – and can make a difference  over the long haul. Justice Department and Labor Department appointees are two  glaring examples. Department and division heads set policy and set the tone.

Through their radical prism, leftist Justice Department honchos are often  blinded to such legitimately noble principles as equal protection of the laws.  To them, equal protection doesn’t mean equal protection for everyone; it means  avenging past wrongs on behalf of historically aggrieved minorities (real and  perceived) and not just according those groups preferential treatment but  affirmatively discriminating against others – e.g., whites – who they believe  are not entitled to equal protection.

In his handling of the voter-intimidation case against members of the New  Black Panther Party alone, Attorney General Eric Holder proved that he believes  that civil rights laws do not exist for the protection of whites from  infringement by other groups. Neither he nor his important lieutenants believe  in enforcing voting laws in a race-neutral manner, equal protection be <snip>ed.  Former members of the Justice Department’s civil rights division have attested  to that fact.

Columnist Quin Hillyer reports that though Thomas Perez wasn’t working in  this division when the original decision was made to dismiss the case against  the New Black Panthers, “his direct involvement in, and hands-on management of,  what amounted to a cover-up of the decision’s origins should alone be  disqualifying for any Cabinet post.”

Do you think the American public, even rank-and-file Democrats, would approve  of significant divisions of the Justice Department and Labor Department being  turned over to radicals like Perez, who believes in using his position to  install 113 fellow radicals in career positions at the civil rights division, to  impose racial quotas when the law doesn’t permit it, to oppose voter ID laws on  spurious, manufactured racial grounds and to harass states such as Arizona  merely for trying to assist the federal government in enforcing laws this  administration refuses to enforce?

We have to do a better job of exposing radicals and preventing them from  overthrowing our constitutional guarantees from inside our government. Sean  Hannity, Quin Hillyer, Michelle Malkin and others have stepped up to the plate  to expose the radicalism of Perez and other Obama appointees who are dismantling  our institutions brick by brick. Others of us need to do a better job in this  regard.

When a president appoints radicals who disrespect the Constitution and rule  of law and believe they can be manipulated at will to serve their political  ends, he forfeits any traditional deference to which his appointments might  otherwise be entitled.

Perez must be opposed.

If you are addicted to common sense and logic, South Dakota should bring a  smile to your face.

These sensible Americans just passed a law allowing teachers to carry weapons  in school as a means to protect their students from terminal psychos hell-bent  on committing mass murder.

Allowing teachers to chose to carry a concealed weapon is the right way to  go. While the NRA and common-sense Americans support putting armed guards in  schools, for those districts who can’t afford an armed guard, allowing teachers  to carry a concealed weapon is sound and wise policy.

The hand-wringing lefties are already protesting South Dakota’s law. They are  claiming arming teachers will lead to accidental shootings and will make schools  more dangerous.

As usual, they are wrong and hypocrites of the first degree. The D.C. school  where the president’s daughters attend reportedly has 11 armed guards. Hey, if  it’s good enough for the president’s kids, why isn’t it good enough for all  schools?

Utah has permitted teachers to carry personal artillery for over a decade  with not a single accidental shooting.

Hell, I’ve had unlimited access to unlimited firepower my entire 64 years and  have been a rock-solid asset to my fellow man forever.

Experience more of  Ted Nugent’s no-holds-barred passion and patriotism in his books and WND’s “Ted  Nugent for President!” bumpers sticker

We heard the same hyper paranoid argument from the anti-gun crowd when states  began passing concealed-carry laws. They and their left-leaning supporters in  the media claimed this would lead to more violence, that there would be  shoot-outs at stoplights, in shopping centers, blah blah blah. Of course, none  of this has come to pass, and there are literally millions of Americans with  concealed-carry permits. Like my good friend John Lott proved, “More  guns equal less crime.” Duh.

The left has lied for decades about guns because they hate guns, despise the  Second Amendment and blame the NRA families for crime and violence in our  cities.

Truth is, it is the socialist stooges who are responsible for violence. It is  their policies that prevent good guys from arming and protecting themselves and  creates the big lie of “gun free” slaughter zones.

It isn’t just anti-gun leftist policies that have enabled thugs to breed and  prosper. The violence on America’s streets is the result of a number of other  leftist big-government policies that have worked to destroy families and entire  communities by discouraging accountability and rewarding dangerous behavior. 

That’s the turbo destructo modus operandi of the socialists: Intentionally  destroy something and then claim the solution to fix it is always more  government, more laws, more control and less freedom.

South Dakota is blessed not to have many of these socialist nutjobs running  around and trying to ruin it like they have done in virtually every big city in  America where gangland random violence is the status quo.

The question is: Do you want to protect school children or not?

South Dakota voted yes by allowing teachers to carry weapons. Had the left  got their way, South Dakota kids would have been put at risk to a horrible Sandy  Hook tragedy.

Indeed, South Dakota teachers who choose to carry should routinely practice  with their weapons to ensure they are proficient with their guns. School  districts should provide funds for teachers to purchase ammunition so they can  routinely practice and train adequately.

I’ve got my own line of high-performance ammunition and gladly offer to  provide ammunition for South Dakota school teachers’ training at reduced  cost.

Good people want to protect our children. Leftist stooges want to create  conditions for evil to flourish. They don’t care one bit about protecting kids. 

Never trust leftist goons. They will put you and your children at risk to  advance their socialist, anti-freedom agenda.

Old news.

As I wrote last week, Paul said he was concerned that Americans targeted for  suspected terrorist ties would be destroyed in America itself. He revealed in an  editorial in the Washington Times: “The president said, ‘I haven’t killed anyone  yet, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might’” (“Rising in  defense of the Constitution,” Rand Paul, washingtontimes.com, March 8).

I have a complete transcript of Paul’s 13-hour speech, including his  follow-up to this presidential contempt for the separation of powers: “What if  the president were to say, ‘I haven’t broken the First Amendment yet; I intend  to follow it, but I might break it.’”

Later, Paul said: “Presidents, Republican and Democrats, believing in some  sort of inherent power that’s not listed anywhere … For a hundred years or so,  power’s been gravitating to the president – and the executive branch.”

And dig this from Rand Paul: “One of the complaints that you hear a lot of  times in the media is about there is no bipartisanship in Congress. (But) if you  look at people who don’t really believe in much restraint of government as far  as civil liberties, it really is on both sides.”

So, “Republicans and Democrats (also) vote overwhelmingly against the  Constitution giving Congress the power to declare war.

“The Constitution gave it to us (the people),” Paul emphasized, “but we are  giving it back.”

Also, on the question of bipartisanship, he adds: “The bipartisanship that we  have now, which many in the media fail to understand, they see us not getting  along on taxes and on spending, but they fail to understand that on something  very important, on whether an individual has a right not to be restrained  indefinitely, there is quite a bit of partisanship, usually in the wrong  direction.”

How about a Citizens’ Teacher of the Year Award to Rand Paul? Or at least  something that gets teachers who know enough about constitutional rule of law to  discuss his illumination of Americanism in their classrooms.

An awful lot keeps getting debated about Obamacare – in bars, restaurants, by  hospital patients and among doctors – but during those 13 hours, Paul added this  very troubling dimension to what is going to affect the health care of more and  more of us, whether young or an octogenarian, as I am:

“When we passed Obamacare, it was 2,000-some-odd pages. There have been 9,000  pages of regulations written since. Obamacare had 1,800 references that the  secretary of health shall decide at a later date. We (the people) gave up that  power. We gave up power that should have been ours, that should have been  written into the legislation. We gave up that power to the executive branch …  many of whom we call bureaucrats, unelected.”

Since some of those bureaucrats, who have never examined us as patients, will  soon be telling us that our doctors’ treatment of us is too expensive, how angry  are we at giving away our power to maybe live longer?

How many voting Americans know and care about this Rand Paul regeneration of  the Constitution, as it can affect our very lives?

He told us: “Your government was given a few defined powers (by the  Constitution), enumerated powers. … But your liberties are many. … When you read  the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, it says that those rights not explicitly given  to government are left to the states and the people. They’re yours, not to be  disparaged.”

How many Americans are familiar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – or have  read them at all?

Perhaps you remember this from Paul during his 13-hour speech:

“They say the United States is the battlefield (against terrorism) now. …  This battlefield being here at home means you don’t get due process at home. …  Is that what we’re moving toward?”

Paul got more penetratingly specific: “The question is, if the government is  going to decide who are sympathizers (with terrorists), and people who are  politicians with no checks and balances are to decide who is a sympathizer, is  there a danger really that people who have political dissent could be included  in this?”

The answer is in the database records of the FBI and state and local police  intelligence divisions.

The ACLU and other non-partisan civil-liberties and human-rights  organizations should set up continuing debates around the country that are  rooted in Paul’s revival of the Bill of Rights and other now-somnolent parts of  the Constitution.

But also, the growing number of active civics classes I’ve been reporting on  in schools around the country should bring Paul into the lives and intentions of  these students who are learning to be authentic, informed Americans.

And Rand Paul himself, in addition to now campaigning for the presidency in  2016, should start visiting schools and getting students to learn how this  patriot suddenly regenerated American values that they can continue  strengthening throughout their lives as citizens.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

– Psalm 11:3

In case you haven’t heard, his son is a homosexual.

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime  commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the  government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in  a commentary published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch.

I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman’s son didn’t choose to become a  polygamist or a serial killer.

I have no doubt Rob Portman is sincere in his newfound opinion.

However, that’s all it is – an opinion.

And opinions don’t determine what is right and what is wrong. Opinions don’t  determine what is sinful and what is not sinful. Opinions don’t determine what  is truth and what is a lie.

Few are willing to say it anymore, but I will: Morality is determined by God,  not men.

Portman’s statement about two people making a lifetime commitment to love and  care for each other is very touching. But it’s not what marriage is about.  People make such commitments all the time. Parents make lifetime commitments to  love and care for their disabled children. They don’t generally marry them.  Siblings sometimes do the same thing. I trust Portman is not advocating  incestual relations as next on his list of reflective changes in the law.

And then there’s the question no one in the same-sex marriage camp wants to  answer: Why should such marriages be limited to couples? Isn’t that  narrow-minded and bigoted? Why not legalize polygamy or group marriages?

I once asked a noted homosexual-activist radio talker this question. His  answer was remarkable: “There is no demand for polygamy,” he said.

No demand? There’s far more demand for polygamy than for same-sex  marriage. One of the biggest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion  adherents, says it is perfectly all right. Another religion, based in the U.S.,  was forced to change its beliefs so that Utah could enter the union. And  polygamy is not waning in popularity – it’s on the rise.

If you think it is of little consequence that a Republican senator has  decided to cave to the cultural pressure to redefine the institution of  marriage, think again.

• Portman was one of a handful of politicians on Mitt Romney’s short list for  a vice presidential running mate. 

   

• Even more important right now is that Portman is the vice chairman of the  National Republican Senatorial Committee whose sole job is to raise money for  Republican Senate candidates in 2014. How would you like to be an  anti-establishment Republican Senate candidate who affirms that holy matrimony  is an institution created by God in the Garden of Eden with Rob Portman doling  out money to Republican Senate candidates? This is one more very important  reason not to send a dime to the NRSC or to Karl Rove’s super PACs. Give  your money only to the campaigns of worthy candidates.

People like Todd Akin and Steve King don’t represent a threat to the future  of the Republican Party. People like Rob Portman and Karl Rove represent a clear  and present danger to its future.

What they are pushing is not liberty, it is licentiousness. What they are  pushing is not morality, it is moral relativism. What they are pushing is not  the kind of virtue and personal responsibility that makes self-government  possible, it is the kind of pop-culture immorality that makes self-government  impossible.

“In short, contrary to the founders – and in ways they do not realize  themselves – Americans today are heedlessly pursuing a vision of freedom that is  short-lived and suicidal,” said Os Guinness. “Once again, freedom without  virtue, leadership without character, business without trust, law without  customs, education without meaning and medicine, science and technology without  human considerations can end only in disaster.”

Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

Here’s what He said about marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man  leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall  be one flesh.”

Here’s what He said about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not  lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Here’s what He said about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6: “Have ye not read, that  he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For  this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:  and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one  flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Do you believe the Apostle Paul was divinely inspired in his New Testament  writings?

Here’s what he said in Romans 1:18-32: “For the wrath of God is revealed from  heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in  unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for  God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation  of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,  even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because  that, when they knew God, They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;  but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of  the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,  and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to  uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies  between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and  served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their  women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise  also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one  toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in  themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they  did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate  mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all  unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of  envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God,  despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable,  unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things  are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do  them.”

Whom are you going to believe – the Creator of the universe or Rob  Portman?

Does it seem to you like there is far more strife within America in the last  few years? Brother against brother, women against men, parents against children,  neighbor against neighbor, race against race, faith against faith …

You’re not imagining things.  It’s happening. And a great deal of this strife  can be directly or indirectly traced back to the government and its  programs.

It is the natural course for government (any government, really) to gain  power by dismantling or neutralizing any restrictions placed upon it.  In  America, those restrictions are found in the Constitution and Bill of  Rights.

But the government can’t just declare the Constitution null and void.  Too  sudden, too dangerous.  Instead, it must incrementally remove these restrictions  by fomenting dissension among citizens, using divisive tactics, and then  proposing the suspension of certain liberties in the name of “safety” or  “fairness.”

The plan is deceptively simple.  The first thing to do is create dependency  whenever possible.  The government has done this by pushing (actively  pushing) welfare on any and all who want it.  By removing the incentive  to work, eradicating the need for fathers and subsidizing unwed motherhood, the  government has created a multi-generational dependent class rife with poverty,  apathy, violence and criminal behavior.

Next, nurture distrust between economic levels.  By implying that the  economic playing field should be leveled (regardless of effort) and the rich  should “pay their fair share” (regardless of reality), the twin sins of envy and  greed are cultivated.  Productive citizens are punished for their success, and  unproductive citizens are encouraged to take without earning.  Imagine what this  does to personal incentive on either end of the spectrum.

Next, discourage entrepreneurship by imposing insane and unnecessary  bureaucratic red tape on businesses to keep us all “safe” from any harm and make  things “fair” to anyone whose feelings get hurt.  This discourages the free  market and makes room for state-controlled monopolies.

Next, reduce the need for self-control.  By removing the consequences of poor  decisions, the government breeds indulgence, decadence and selfishness.   Self-disciplined people are self-governed.  Those without self-control need  strong government to control them.  The more personal responsibility our  government can convince us to surrender, the more power it obtains over us.

Next, cultivate hatred between racial groups.  “Obama has repeatedly returned  to the well of racial divisiveness to serve his political ends,” notes Ann  Coulter, and this administration has certainly seen far more racial violence and  tension than any time since the Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s (but without  the noble motivation).

Next, take hold of the children.  Progressive indoctrination in government  schools has been taking place for decades.  Children are imprisoned and subject  to mind control to the extent that even nibbling a Pop-Tart into the shape of a  gun can get a kid into trouble.  Children are trained to passively submit to  violations of their free speech (stifling any references to God, pro-life  sentiments, or patriotic expressions) and to submit to violations of their  persons and property (metal detectors, locker searches, urine tests).  And they  are taught only a progressive agenda, often in defiance of parental values and  always in defiance of civilized and decent behavior.

Next, plunge the nation into debt so massive that an economic collapse is a  statistical certainty.  The scale of societal upheaval (in commerce,  transportation, and justice) in the aftermath of such a collapse has no  precedent in America.

Next, water down the right of self-defense by claiming certain pieces of  metal are evil in and of themselves, and therefore illegal for any civilian to  own.  Only elites and their guards are permitted to own them.

Next, demonize gun owners.  Categorize trained veterans as mentally unstable  and therefore unfit to possess firearms.  Confiscate weapons from any citizen  speaking his mind in public or seeking medical care.

Next, use crude, offensive and sneering labels for anyone who opposes these  tactics.  The most popular labels include racists, birthers, teabaggers,  right-wing nutjobs, fanatics, tinfoil hat wearers, conspiracy theorists, etc.   I’m sure you can think of more.

And above all, be patient.  The government can afford to take 50 years to  create a dependent class.  It can afford to wait a few generations to breed out  any vestiges of pride or self-reliance in children, their parents and their  grandparents.

These divide-and-conquer strategies work.  They keep the masses bickering  among themselves.  And while we the people quarrel with each other, our  attention is diverted away from the government, which is gradually dismantling  the Constitution and implementing anti-constitutional legislation to control us.  All for our own good, of course.

When the dependent class gives in to violence and begins rioting, the  government will find it convenient to intervene.  Perhaps they will implement  martial law or impose gun confiscation on everyone (not just rioters) to  calm the masses and reduce strife… the very strife the government purposely  created.

Always, always, it comes down to self-defense.  As long as its citizens are  armed, no government can succeed to despotism.  That’s why they spend  generations training children about the evils of guns.  That’s why they’re  hostile to patriotic families.  That’s why they sneer at veterans and tell them  they’re too mentally unstable to own firearms.  That’s why our politicians,  public schools and other federal branches demonize guns and gun owners at every  possible opportunity.  The government must disarm us, whatever it  takes.

But I have hope for our future, and I’ll tell you why: America is unique  among nations.  We do not have deep roots of meek obedience and passivity in the  face of government abuse.  At heart, we remain a stubborn and independent  people.  While the flicker of autonomy has been forever quashed in some, for  most of us that irrepressible spark can never be fully eradicated.  Our heritage  of freedom, liberty, self-reliance and sheer orneriness will eventually  rise.

When it does, our own government might be shocked and appalled at the unified  spirit of opposition that will sweep our country, bypassing liberal bastions but  rooting deep in the heartland.

And if the government elites come for our guns, they’re going to find  themselves facing a conflagration larger than anything they could ever imagine.   By and large, the heartland of America hasn’t been brainwashed into the  progressive groupthink that’s been so successful in the cities.

When it comes time to reclaim our country, we’ll be ready.  We’ll no longer  be brother against brother, blacks against whites, rich against poor, elite  against the masses.

We’ll be patriots against tyranny.  Just as America has always  been.

Like the proverbial monkey typing for infinity and getting Shakespeare, Mayor  Bloomberg’s obsession with reforming New Yorkers’ health has finally produced a  brilliant ad campaign.

Posters are popping up in subway stations and bus stops giving statistics  about teen pregnancy that show cute little kids saying things like, “Honestly,  Mom … chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” and “I’m twice as  likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”

It’s one thing to stigmatize “Big Gulp” drinkers, but liberals are hopping  mad at this attempt to stigmatize teen pregnancy, 90 percent of which is unwed.  To put it another way, if you’re a New York teen with a distended belly these  days, it had better be because you’re pregnant.

Planned Parenthood’s Haydee Morales complained that the ads are creating  “stigma” and “negative public opinions about teen pregnancy.” (I’m pretty sure  that’s the basic idea.)

Instead, Morales suggested “helping teens access health care, birth control  and high-quality sexual and reproductive health education.” Like the kind they  got before becoming pregnant, you mean? Are you new here, Haydee?

Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood happens to provide reproductive health  care! Liberals act as if gun owners, soda-guzzlers and smokers are innocent  victims of the gun, food and cigarette industries, but the $542 million-a-year  birth control industry is a quarry of angels.

The New York Times’ Michael Powell explained in a column that, as a parent of  teenagers, he’s learned that the stupidest thing to do is resort to “the  shame-and-blame game.” Teenage pregnancy, he states categorically, is a “problem  of poverty.”

I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem, but let’s stick to liberals’  newfound opposition to shaming campaigns.

Far from opposing stigmas, liberals are the main propagators of them –  against cigarettes, guns, plastic bags, obesity, not recycling, Fox News, racist  “code words,” not liking “Lincoln” and junk food.

The stigma against smoking has gone so swimmingly that you can’t enjoy a  little tobacco pleasure 50 yards from another human being without some bossy  woman marching over and accusing you of poisoning her.

California is currently running a series of “Reefer Madness”-style  anti-smoking ads, including one that shows cigarette smoke going from a woman  outside on her porch, up a story, through the door of another apartment, across  the living room, down the hallway and into a room where a baby is sleeping. That  would be the equivalent of the Bloomberg ads claiming teen pregnancy causes  genocide.

And what exactly was the purpose of the Journal-News publishing the names and  addresses of every legal gun owner in various counties in New York state a few  months ago? To congratulate them? To start a hunting club?

No, I believe it was to stigmatize legal gun owners. The fact that we didn’t  already know who they were proved that the problem isn’t legal gun ownership.  All those legal guns – and no rash of drive-by shootings!

Los Angeles has banned plastic bags at supermarkets, even though reusable  canvas bags are portable bacterial colonies. But a little ad campaign describing  the downsides of teenage pregnancy – which is still subsidized – and liberals  howl in protest.

One begins to suspect that liberals aren’t as interested in stopping  teenagers from having illegitimate kids as they claim. Do they believe a  teenager who gets pregnant out of wedlock is harming herself and her child as  much a teenager who smokes? How about an unwed teen who smokes at a landfill? 

It’s only a “shame-and-blame game” when liberals secretly approve of the  behavior they pretend to oppose.

Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back  to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create  broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for  socialist revolution.

That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an  ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government  workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their  Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the  rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have  sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda  is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes  do more damage than single motherhood.

• Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the  strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was  raised by a single mother. 

   

• At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school  dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single  mothers.
• A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent  single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates. 

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against  “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and  “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

Where the Sun Don’t Shine

President Obama promised transparency and open government. He failed miserably. So why do Washington watchdog groups look the other way? 

By Paul D. Thacker|Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 5:23 AM

According to the Maryland delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention,  Benjamin Franklin was reportedly approached by a lady with a question as the  convention drew to a close. The Constitutional Convention had been called to  address several critical issues facing the fledgling confederacy of colonies.  There were several domestic issues, involving among other things, national  defense, taxes and commerce to be resolved. It must be understood that the 1777  Articles of Confederation (which served as the written document that established  the functions of the national government) did not empower the new government to  tax, control commerce or regulate many other domestic affairs.

For example, since Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, it depended on  financial contributions from the states to repay foreign loans, as well as the  soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. Several of the states would not  participate, and since the former colonies (now states) themselves often engaged  in economic discrimination against each other, the fledgling nation faced doubts  as to its ability to survive. There were those, both at home and abroad, who  wondered if any treaties with the new nation were valid. In point of fact, the  young nation was essentially bankrupt and something had to be done.

The founders, via the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, convened 55  delegates to “devise such  further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution  of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union.”

There were a number of issues facing the delegates: the liberties of  conscience, protection of creditors and debtors, and, of course, the issue of  slaves and slave owners. While there were other issues, these were some of the  major topics to be addressed.

The colonies had recently been subjected to rule by a monarch, by dictate,  and had lacked the freedom to make decisions for themselves, by themselves. The  overriding concern now was, how would they subsequently be governed?

The question posed by this lady to Franklin was rooted in the concerns of  many: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Benjamin Franklin reportedly replied, “A republic Madame, if you can keep  it.”

Two were two critical issues in Franklin’s short response and both are  vitally important. Failure to grasp either of them would be extremely  detrimental to the future of the 13 colonies then and our 50 states today.

“A republic”: The United States Constitution created what we now know as a  representative republic, one of the few in the world. It is vital that we  comprehend that America is not a democracy and was never intended to be one, no  matter who calls it such. “Democracy” never once appears in the Constitution.  This is why; in a democracy, the majority makes laws directly. Put another way,  it can easily become, essentially, mob rule. However, in a representative  republic, elected representatives, chosen by the people, make the laws and are  subject to the laws according to the limited powers assigned them in a written  document.

“… if you can keep it”: Prior to the American revolution, most nations were  ruled by kings or dictators. The people were subject to them, had nothing to do  with rulership and had no responsibility for, or say so in, their own destinies.  The founders’ intent was clearly demonstrated by their assignment of the destiny  of the people to the people. The people were to be responsible for their own  future and the future of their children. “We the people” was more than merely a  slogan or poetic phrase. It was indicative of the desire and intent of the  founders for the people to become and remain active in their own destinies.

“… if you can keep it” was a dire warning. The liberties endowed by our  Constitution were in the hands of the people themselves; they were not to be  delegated, inherited or passed on by virtue of status. It was anticipated that  the people themselves would become knowledgeable and remain actively involved in  the defense and maintenance of their own liberties.

There was to be “liberty and justice for all” – not for a privileged few or  the rioting many, but individual liberty secured by an informed citizenry  participating in their own representative governance.

Is that what is presently taking place in America, or have we abandoned our  republic to a privileged few professional politicians and political party  hacks?

Who do/should/would we hold accountable for the loss of our republic? Us or  them?

“Well, America, what have we got?”

In all the noise caused by the Obama administration’s direct assault on the  right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been  drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe  that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of  this debate is about obedience to law.

To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of  their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it  says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal  liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal  liberty – the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and  the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government –  that the big-government crowd fears the most.

Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that  when he wrote that our liberties are unalienable and endowed by our Creator, and  the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our  liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to  restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea  that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few  by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s  where we are today.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which  curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies  from killing. It is obvious that criminals don’t care what the law says because  they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates  who are deranged don’t recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they  cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in  the future, no matter what the law says.

When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use  of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III – whom we had  just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would  start in 1812 – no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of  their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from  Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely  successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear  the use of weaponry.

If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them  who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists’  guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would  have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution – one not  taught in public schools today – is that the colonists actually had superior  firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which  propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But  the colonists had the long gun – sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee  – which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far  as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king  and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?

The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the  government – even a popularly elected one that they can unelect – to take their  freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to  convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it  unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive  registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and  quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial  liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of  some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who  want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.

We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to  self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It  cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or  due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a  popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as  destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.

We all know the children’s parable of the “Emperor Who Had No Clothes,” don’t  we? The tale of the self-important ruler so vain that when his vapid,  sycophantic court suggested he order up the most luxurious, expensive robe ever  designed, made of the sheerest, most diaphanous fabric ever known, almost  invisible but to the more educated, cultivated eyes. The emperor happily  agreed.

Actually, there was no such fabric. But the designers counted on his  incredible vanity, and when they went through the motions of trying this  unprecedented “garment” on the naked emperor and raving about how handsome he  looked in it, he exultantly proclaimed he’d parade through his kingdom, proudly  showing off his new sartorial splendor. 

And suddenly, the whole massive crowd could admit that they saw no finery  either, and that the emperor was indeed … naked.

It’s a funny story, of course, and quite pertinent today. But I think it  needs to be made more contemporary, so we get its possible meaning for our  society and see if there are obvious parallels. So …

Once upon a time , there was an emperor, self-proclaimed though not elected  to that office by his people. He held sway, incredibly, over a mighty nation  called America – previously a democratic republic in which the people governed  themselves. He accomplished this by “executive decisions,” largely ignoring the  restrictions of the country’s constitution, by appointing unelected “czars” to  positions of power, by hypnotizing the media into slavish acceptance of his  every word and deed, promising minority groups everything they wanted at  taxpayer expense, and forcing gigantic unaffordable national obligations down  the throats of a mind-numbed Congress … all purposely designed to give him  unbridled power no previous president ever dreamed of, or wanted.

Before most of the citizenry quite realized what was happening, he  “fundamentally transformed” the country into a socialist dictatorship, ruled by  an emperor. Himself.

Even he was surprised at how easily he did this, as was his fawning court.  While piling impossible assignments on a hapless, hopelessly divided Congress,  he played golf and took incredibly lavish vacations, always transported by the  most expensive, state-of-the-art giant airplane, dubbed “Emperor I.” A slight  majority of the people, hating to even entertain the idea they’d been deceived,  kept telling each other the emperor was doing “his best,” though mounting  unpayable debt and insane borrowing was driving the nation into bankruptcy and  ruin.

Soon, the mighty regent, fairly intoxicated with his unlimited power, asked  his court to devise a new impossible task for his slaves – a “sequester” – a  deadline by which the Congress either gave him even greater power to tax and  spend trillions of dollars however he chose, or he would have the power to hack  and cut away programs that weakened the military (for which he had no regard,  though he was its “commander in chief”), and hurt many innocent people who he  thought would then turn to him as their savior.

Once the deadline was reached, and he felt he had won a great victory, he  gave his minions a new assignment. Since he had earlier promised the “most  transparent administration in history,” he asked creative people to fashion new  garments for him to wear, befitting his ascendancy to near divine status. And  fittingly, the designers garbed him in such diaphanous, gauzy, sheer fabrics  that they were virtually invisible.

At his first public appearance, to the shock and anger of the emperor, a  young lad named Bob said loudly, where millions heard him, “The emperor is  naked! He’s lying to us! Why is he doing this?”

And rather than being shocked into silence, increasing numbers of previous  supporters began yelling questions at the startled, suddenly embarrassed  ruler.

“Why are you keeping all your early school, passport and travel records  sealed permanently, so that we can never know how you came to this position? And  whether you are actually, legally entitled to rule over us this way?”

“Your Highness, since no hospital in this country claims you were born there,  why do you not produce an actual birth certificate or some verifiable proof of  your citizenship, as the Constitution demands? What’s with your Social Security  and Selective Service numbers, that first belonged to other people?”

And immediately another voice cried out, “Yeah, you told us on national TV  you were putting a copy of your birth certificate on the White House website,  making fun of anybody who doubted you. But when we went there to look, we found  a photoshopped creation, a fraud, not a copy of anything! Just something you  had somebody make up! You think we’re too dumb to notice, or afraid to do  anything about it! Why are you doing this to us, to our country?”

The emperor cringed, momentarily unable to respond. He tried to look  imperial, but he looked down and saw that he had indeed become transparent. The  citizens, even some of his guilty co-conspirators, were seeing right through  him. They began to edge away from him, hoping to melt into the growingly  hostile crowd.

“Yeah, Emp,” yelled a big truck driver, “how come you appointed so many  actual Communists and socialists to powerful positions? You tryin’ to make us a  socialist country? You don’t like a ‘we the people’ kind of government?”

An emboldened Catholic priest called out, “Why can’t you leave marriage  alone? Why do you try to force people of faith to give in to your perverted  ‘evolving’ ideology? Didn’t you claim to be a Christian? Have you actually read  more than a few verses of the Bible?”

Sweating and nervous, looking smaller and trying to cover his private parts,  the naked man intoned, “I am not a dictator. I’m not really an emperor … I’m the  president.”

At that, realizing they’d been duped, even swindled and lied to, the massive  crowd began to chant angrily, “The TRUTH! THE TRUTH! TELL US THE TRUTH!”

Unable or unwilling to do what they asked, the small naked man made his way  into the crowd – and disappeared.

On March 4, despite hundreds of Coloradans flooding the State Capitol in  Denver and honking horns on the streets that encircle the building all day long,  and the presence of 25 county sheriffs opposed to seven Democratic  gun-control proposals, the measures all passed the Colorado House along  party-line votes. Democrats currently control both houses of the Colorado  legislature, as well as the governor’s office. Legislators’ testimony during the  hearings was replete with smug, ignorant sanctimony, blithering idiocy and  outright lies.

The Democrat members of the Colorado legislature have shown themselves to  be enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of  the state of Colorado. What occurred in Colorado on that day was nothing  short of a disgusting outrage and a chilling precursor of things to come.

Two factors regarding this development are particularly distressing. The  first is the revelation that the Colorado legislature is lousy with knee-jerk  dullards who operate at the level of those who suspend grade-school children  from school for possessing napkins and toaster pastries that bear rudimentary  resemblance to firearms. As has become clear in recent weeks, many are  themselves from the ranks of low-information voters with scant knowledge of the  Constitution, or progressive zealots who seek to abolish same.

The second factor is the influence of President Barack Hussein Obama writ  large on the whole affair. As we know, Vice President Biden personally leaned on  Colorado legislators last month in an effort to tip the national conversation on  gun rights in progressives’ favor. Thus, with sanction from the White House  itself, these legislators forged ahead with what they wanted – not what was  legal or popular – in typical autocratic progressive fashion.

Colorado voters are now anxiously wondering what the position of their chief  public executive, John Hickenlooper, will be. Considering the Democratic  governor once called Obama a “rock star,” I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for  his doing the right thing.

When I escaped New York for Colorado years ago, I certainly did not expect it  to become ground zero for the assault on the Second Amendment, and the idea that  the state in which I live is essentially being ruled from afar by a radical  Marxist is quite worrisome. If the people of Colorado, a state with a tradition  of rugged individualism and liberty, do not rebound fiercely as a result of this  obscenity, then the state will indeed become California (a long-held fear of  many natives and transplants alike) in very short order.

The stark difference between what Colorado was and what it is rapidly  becoming is easier to see here than other states, since Colorado’s heritage and  history more resemble that of Texas than New York or California. Given that, I  pray it has become clear to Coloradans that they must now undertake a wholesale  eradication of progressive policy from the governance of their state.

It is no secret among conservatives that for the last several years, Colorado  has been a chief target of one high-profile progressive billionaire and former  Nazi collaborator (George Soros) through his various radical astroturf political  organizations. With this aid, and through the aforementioned methods, the White  House effectively subverted Colorado’s legislative processes and is ruling by  proxy, while maintaining the illusion of legitimate due process.

What concerns me most about the developments in Colorado and other states  vis-à-vis firearms laws is that this progression has brought us that much closer  to law-enforcement officials showing up at citizens’ homes and demanding their  guns. Raised in the same environment as the rest of us, many peace officers  won’t realize that they are operating well outside of the law.

And that’s when things will have the potential to get really ugly.

On Jan. 6, 2013, Nathan Haddad, a former Army staff sergeant and decorated  combat veteran, was selling some gun magazines when he was arrested for  violating a new New York state law prohibiting possession of magazines that hold  more than 10 rounds. Haddad was charged with five felonies.

The officers who arrested Haddad, and those prosecuting him have shown  themselves to be enemies of the Constitution and the people of the United States  of America. Officials who enforce immoral laws are no better than Hitler’s  Gestapo. Where, pray tell, do they plan to draw the line at what unlawful  decrees they will and will not uphold?

Very soon, we are likely to hear of an individual who, upon being contacted  by law enforcement, winds up in a firefight with them over their enforcement of  newly implemented gun-control measures. Law-enforcement officers may be wounded  or killed, as might our citizen. If arrested, he or she will be a political  prisoner. This will be the final nail in the coffin for legal firearms  ownership in America, as the government and the press will capitalize upon this  event (and perhaps similar others) to prove once and for all that all gun  owners are potential psycho cop killers.

Why does the government (and the Obama administration in particular) want  Americans’ firearms? Because they know that they are already guilty of  prosecutable crimes and are planning many more. They know that they represent  precisely why America’s founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution in  the first place, and that they already merit being removed by force of arms.  They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that  realization and respond accordingly.

Hugo Chavez was reported dead Tuesday. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer  Communist dictator. Chavez understood that technology, and specifically  controlling technology through politics, is power. To that end, he  announced his intent to fundamentally transform his nation. He then proceeded to  do so while holding Venezuela’s economy hostage, nationalizing major  infrastructure and industry while making incursions into regional banking.  Through it all, he treated his critics and opponents with such brutality that  several times his opposition rose up against him. Once, those opponents even  managed a brief coup that saw the swearing in of a new president, only to be put  down by legions of adoring, loyal sycophants who were content to allow Chavez to  run their lives.

Does this sound at all familiar yet? 

In 2002, Chavez’ goons shot 19 protesters who demanded the president’s  resignation. A coup was attempted, but Chavez was rescued by Army forces loyal  to him. A few months later, various business, political and labor organizations  attempted a strike to break Chavez’ hold on the state-run oil industry. They  failed. Two years later, in response to a referendum asking whether Chavez  should immediately step down, Venezuelans voted overwhelmingly to keep Chavez in  office. Four months later, Chavez signed an agreement strengthening his ties to  Cuba’s Communist dictatorship.

In 2006, Chavez called then-president George W. Bush “the devil” in a speech  in the U.N., muttering something about smelling brimstone where Bush had been  standing. That December he was again re-elected to a six-year term (a term he  lengthened with his new constitution back in 1999). Feeling invincible after  winning with yet another healthy majority of the vote, Chavez publicly announced  his intention to transform his Bolivarian republic into a socialist regime.

In 2007, Chavez was granted “sweeping powers to legislate by decree,”  officially making him the nation’s dictator. He immediately nationalized the  country’s major electric and communications companies and ordered the takeover  of foreign oil interests. Despite some voter pushback to his initiatives, Chavez  ordered the nationalization of the country’s cement industry the following year.  He then announced his intention to nationalize the Bank of Venezuela.

Also in 2008, Chavez ordered the United States ambassador out of the country.  In 2009, he won voter approval to eliminate term limits. Venezuela’s dictator  was poised to remain in office for as long as he liked. But in 2010, Chavez lost  his supermajority in Venezuela’s congress. He was granted another 18 months’  dictatorial powers by the outgoing lawmakers. Despite repeated health problems,  he won yet another six-year term in 2012. Only his death finally unseated  him.

The story of Hugo Chavez is one that parallels Barack Hussein Obama’s  disastrous but popular rule over the American people. Obama, too, ran as a  candidate of the people. Obama, too, announced his intention to “fundamentally  transform” the United States – a nation of which his racist wife was never proud  before her husband’s rise to power. Once elected, Obama proceeded to implement  policies that have done nothing but harm this nation’s economy.

Whether it was standing in the way of the Keystone pipeline or vilifying business owners at every turn,  Obama’s economic outlook has been clearly socialist and clearly harmful. He  nationalized a sixth to a seventh of the United States economy with Obamacare,  all while lying about how much the plan would cost and how much control  the plan would exert over individuals’ medical decisions. He proclaimed that  “you didn’t build that” in a sneering declaration of contempt for individual  effort.

Then it got scary.

Eric Holder recently made a breathtaking admission. A  president who never met a drone strike he could not condone now sits poised to  use drones to kill American citizens on American soil without due process. The  very thing liberals called ridiculous, the very threat they dismissed as  conservative hand-wringing over the impossible, is now a reality. Obama’s rogue  Justice Department, which refuses to prosecute blacks because Holder is a racist, believes Obama  can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Remember that this takes place against a landscape in which Obama is trying  to take your firearms from you. State governments are beating Obama to the  punch. In New York, all modern semi-automatic firearms are effectively banned,  and ammunition sales will be subject to background checks that will establish de  facto lists of gun owners. Other states are poised to follow New York’s lead.  Meanwhile, walking gaffe machine Joe Biden continues to tell Americans  ridiculous, dangerous, illegal things he thinks they should do with the  double-barreled shotguns that gibbering idiot would grudgingly allow them.

Remember, too, that Obama’s Department of Homeland Security – which has  classified anyone who might vote against Obama as a potential domestic terrorist  – has just purchased 2,700 armored vehicles and is stockpiling more than a billion rounds of hollow-point  ammunition. Make no mistake: These vehicles and this ammo have no military  application. They exist solely for domestic pacification,which by the way, You paid for.

Seeing any parallels yet?

A dictator who wants to transform his nation into a socialist utopia. A  dictator who deals with opposition with autocratic finality. A dictator who is  not afraid to turn military weapons on his own people. A dictator who wants  broad fiat powers to enact whatever changes he desires, whenever he wants them.  A dictator who enjoys popular support despite his repeated failures. Do these  words describe Hugo Chavez or Barack Hussein Obama? There’s no way to tell the  difference, is there?

The only good news is that one of them is roasting in Hell.

• Tuesday, March 5, 2013

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

With $6 trillion down the drain, you might think that wild, drunken spending  of other people’s money that we do not have is President Obama’s  single greatest talent. Turns out there is something else he is even better  at.

That would be the hysterical, doom-and-gloom fear mongering we have witnessed  these past few weeks over comparatively small cuts to the federal  government.

Mr. Obama’s terroristic threats have been  amply noted everywhere. Planes will fall from the skies, starvation in the  streets, teachers will be sent home.

What is truly astonishing here is not all of the reckless and dire  predictions he has made. Nor is it that already many of his predictions have  proved to be demonstrably false. And nor is it even that he has so clearly  orchestrated a widespread and deceitful campaign to punish Americans with real  pain over the cuts to the federal government their lawmakers have allowed to happen.

What is truly astonishing and breathtaking here is that all of this doom and  gloom Mr. Obama has predicted is precisely  what he wants for this country.

Impossible, you say. No way that someone who seems as hopeful and likable as  Barack Obama could wish such misery on this  country. But that is the only explanation for the president’s response to last  week’s Republican bill to give him broad authority to restructure the cuts in a  way to minimize the pain and disruption.

Someone truly concerned about the impact of the “draconian” cuts to the monstrous federal government would have leaped  for such authority and found ways to spare as many people as possible.

What did Mr. Obama do? He announced his  opposition to the bill and maniacally threatened to veto it if it came across  his desk.

That’s right, you, the American voter, have become Mr.  Obama’s voodoo doll, and he is jabbing you all over with sharp pins and  placing demonic hexes on you right now as you read this. This is gonna hurt and  you are going to feel it!

He wants you to feel writhing pain and he wants you to associate that pain  with the leaner government espoused by his  political opponents — as well as the majority of American voters.

In four short years, Obama has gone from  hopeful orator promising a bright new future to economic terrorist, a spending  jihadist. He is willing to wreck the economy and inflict dire pain on you all  because he is gambling that by trimming the federal government, you will feel pain. And if  you feel that pain, you will blame Republicans.

So much for the new kind of politics he promised us.

Even when you write as often as I do, you can’t really keep up with all the  zaniness that passes for the news today.  But I can’t help trying.

For instance, there were only three senators who voted against confirming  John Kerry, who not only lied about his service and his injuries in Vietnam, but  then lied about throwing away his medals.  He not only kept his medals, but had  them framed on the wall of his Senate office.  It was other people’s medals he  tossed for the benefit of the cameras.  In any case, I thought it was worth  looking into, and I discovered that the three senators who had the courage of  their convictions, and deserved to be lauded, were John Cornyn, James Inhofe and  Ted Cruz.

Let me first state so that there is no confusion, I respect the members of  the military.  After all, the main order of business for the federal government  is not, as liberals insist, funding green energy companies, handing out free  stuff in exchange for votes or promoting abortions and same-sex marriages.   Instead, it is to protect the nation, and it’s the military that handles that  end of things.  That being said, I do not believe it provides veterans with a  lifetime pass from criticism.  I actually heard a senator state that Chuck Hagel  should not have had to face such tough questions at his confirmation hearing  because he had not only served in the military, but had been wounded in  combat.

Just because people have served – some more honorably than others—is no  guarantee that they will be anything special once they return to civilian life.   After all, Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, John  McCain, Daniel Inouye and Ted Kennedy, along with Chuck Hagel, have not only  been shown to have feet of clay, but in some cases have shown themselves to be  covered in muck all the way to the top of their heads.

Proof that liberals aren’t really concerned with gun violence is that they  keep yammering about the size of magazines, but have said nothing about taking  on the urban gangs responsible for most of the murders in America.  Their  hypocrisy is even more apparent when you realize that every city whose streets  are bloody because of the hands-off approach politicians take with these punks  is saddled with a liberal mayor.

It’s apparent that when the same people who wish to disarm law-abiding  Americans turn a blind eye to the black and Hispanic gangs that terrorize their  communities, they adopt a hands-off approach to guns only when they regard them  as tools of the criminal trade.

In the aftermath of Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL super sniper, and his  friend being murdered at a Texas shooting range, Dan Parker wrote to say he  assumed that, henceforth, the Democrats would designate shooting ranges as  gun-free zones.  And I say, “Why wouldn’t they?”  After all, they had already  designated an Army base, Fort Hood, a gun-free-zone, thus making it available to  Maj. Hasan for target practice.

The funniest thing to come out of the gun debate was the photo of Barack  Obama allegedly skeet shooting at Camp David.  Even I, who haven’t fired a rifle  since my days in the ROTC, know that you don’t hold a rifle that high up on your  shoulder, and you certainly don’t aim it straight-on when skeet shooting, as if  your target were Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.  Skeets, as we all know, are  airborne.  Firing at the angle shown in the photo, the only thing Obama would  have hit was the poor schmuck working the skeet release.  You would think that  Team Obama would do a better job of it even if they were merely Photoshopping  the picture in order to show that Obama’s trumped-up war on guns was nothing  personal.

As you may have heard, it has been announced that the FBI is looking into  allegations that Sen. Robert Menendez has engaged in sexual activity with  under-age Dominican prostitutes.  He denies it, insisting it’s a tissue of lies  concocted by a cabal of right-wingers.

As Americans, we are supposed to believe he’s innocent until proven guilty.   And I’m sure that those who park their common sense at the curb will give him  the benefit of the doubt.  But not I.  For one thing, why else would anyone go  there as often as he has, except to do nasty things he can’t get away with  closer to home?  For another, when is the last time there’s been a rumor about a  politician engaged in unsavory sexual activity that hasn’t been proven true?

Just a partial list – a very partial list limited to those you’ve probably  heard of – includes Anthony Weiner, David Wu, Eric Massa, David Petraeus, John  Ensign, John Edwards, Ted and Jack Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Newt Gingrich, Larry  Craig, Mark Foley, Gary Condit, Strom Thurmond, Mel Reynolds, Henry Hyde, Gary  Hart, Wayne Hayes, Jesse Jackson, Wilbur Mills, FDR, Warren G. Harding and even  Alexander Hamilton.

For good measure, there was President James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce’s  V.P., William Rufus King, a couple whom Andrew Jackson, not the most politically  correct man in the world, jokingly referred to as Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy.

Finally, if there has ever been a person in our lifetime who best exemplified  what it means to be a devout liberal, it is probably Jane Fonda, whose actual  birth name was Lady Jane Seymour Fonda.  Not only did she go out of her way to  lend aid and comfort to our enemy in Vietnam – (“Hanoi Jane,” you must agree, is  a lot catchier than Lady Jane Seymour Fonda) – but her personal hypocrisy is of  Olympian proportions.

Just recently, I discovered that she was the third choice to star in “The  Exorcist.”  The first, Audrey Hepburn, agreed to play the role that eventually  went to Ellen Burstyn, but only if it were shot in Italy, where she was then  living.  Next was Anne Bancroft, who turned down the role only because she had  just discovered she was pregnant.

It was at that point, after two of the best actresses in the world had passed  with regrets, that it was offered to Fonda.  She turned it down by phoning the  head of Warner Brothers and demanding to know why he would want to make “a piece  of capitalist rip-off bulls–t like this.”

To grasp the full, self-aggrandizing impact of that statement, you have to  keep in mind that this self-anointed moral arbiter had already starred in  “Barbarella,” the execrable sex fantasy directed by her first husband, Roger  Vadim, and would soon go on to make millions of dollars with a series of silly  exercise DVDs she peddled with the sort of single-mindedness usually reserved to  used car salesmen, televangelists and Bill O’Reilly.

It wasn’t until some years later that she hit the trifecta of liberal  hypocrisy when she tied the knot with billionaire goofball capitalist Ted  Turner.

If you own a company, sell a product or provide a service, or if you know  someone – preferably someone dedicated to conservatism – who owns a company,  sells a product or provides a service, who would be willing to consider  sponsoring my show, please contact me at [email protected], and I will be  happy to answer any and all questions.

Is it possible that Obama’s arrogance, personal pettiness, sanctimoniousness  and egotism (for starters) could finally be his unraveling? Even the liberal  media are starting to notice, but will it last?

Up to this point, they’ve dutifully played along with his Alinskyite tactics  – converting the office of the presidency into a headquarters for community  organizing at a federal level and a position to organize and fund a perpetual  campaign against his political opponents instead of governing.

But perhaps his willingness to hurt the country to make political points,  which until recently they’d overlooked, has finally gotten their attention –  with his brazen lies about the sequester cuts and his release of dangerous  criminal illegals onto the streets. I’ll not be Pollyannaish in hoping for a  sustained liberal-media blowback toward Obama, but these matters have at least  caught their attention and inched ever so slightly forward from the back burner.  That’s something to build on.

<snip>y from his re-election and from a string of triumphs in his negotiations  with Republicans, Obama calculated he could continue to be as dictatorial and  unreasonable as he had been and even ratchet it up a notch and get away with it.  He knew he was lying when he said Republicans were currently causing the  sequestration because they wouldn’t agree to more tax increases. He was the one  primarily responsible for the impasse because he had already gotten his tax  increases and was still refusing to play ball on the spending and entitlements  side – the only side that can make a difference in solving our debt crisis – as  he always has.

The media didn’t call him on that, as flagrantly dishonest as it was. Why  should they have? They rarely had before, and they support his quest to punish  the successful. Loyalty to the truth hasn’t been enough to motivate them to  behave like true journalists and just report the news fairly.

But we saw a hint of media dissatisfaction with Obama when reporter Chuck  Todd criticized Obama for “ceding the moral high ground” concerning the corrupt  influence of money in politics because his campaign arm, Organizing for Action,  has been “selling access to the president.”

Then veteran reporter Bob Woodward came forward to expose a second category  of lies from Obama on the sequestration. Even if some in the liberal media  turned on their former Watergate-famed icon, at least others called White House  press secretary Jay Carney’s hand over this.

It was now obvious that Obama was lying not just about the primary reasons  for the gridlock over the sequester cuts but about who authored the idea in the  first place. After Obama blatantly lied about this and sent out his minions to  do the same, the administration had to grudgingly concede that it had been his  idea. Even then, the administration tried to spin its way out of it by  misrepresenting that Republicans had agreed to revenue hikes as part of the  sequestration.

But amazingly, the spin doesn’t seem to be getting much traction for Obama  for a change. Perhaps it is because Obama went too far when, like a petulant  child, he showed he was willing to hurt the nation to get his way on the  sequestration and further damage Republicans.

He went way over the top, even for him, in his promises of gloom and doom  concerning essential services he falsely claimed would be cut. Education  Secretary Arne Duncan incorrectly claimed that schoolteachers were already being  laid off, which even the Washington Post wouldn’t let stand. Other liberal  outlets came forward to contradict Obama’s hysterical claim over pay cuts on  Capitol Hill. Even “Saturday Night Live” lampooned Obama’s absurd posturing on  the sequester cuts.

Journalist Byron York reported that Obama now seems “resigned to the  possibility that he cannot win the further tax increases he seeks, and that  after enlisting his entire administration in a campaign to frighten Americans  about sequestration, the cuts have become a reality that he has to acknowledge.”  Obama has now admitted that the cuts aren’t going to be apocalyptic as he  warned.

Obama has outdone himself with his administration’s unilateral release of  thousands of dangerous criminal illegal immigrants onto the streets of America  in order to leverage his sequester arguments and then sending Carney out to  grossly misrepresent the scope of this outrage.

I won’t hold my breath for a wholesale transformation of the liberal media’s  attitude toward Obama, but I’m encouraged to see anything at all in that  direction and that the political winds seem to be changing, even if slightly so  far, against Obama.

By Garth Kant

The Obama administration warned us it would be catastrophic. Sequestration  would mean the loss of police officers, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, air  control towers and shipyards…you name it.

Obama and House Speaker John Boehner failed to find an alternative to the  sequester during a last-ditch meeting today, so $85 billion in automatic  spending cuts are scheduled to begin to kick in at the end of the day.

Obama  again blamed Republicans, even though he originated the idea.

“I am not a dictator,” Obama said Friday. He says he can’t lock leaders in a  room to make a deal.

“So ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, ‘I have to catch a  plane,’ I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway,” he said.

“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been  floating around Washington that even though most people agree that I’m being  reasonable, that most people agree that I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact  that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld and  convince them” to agree on a deal, Obama said.

GOP  lawmakers cheered Boehner’s refusal to budge on tax increases.

“I think he realized the president of the United States was using him as a  tool for his own benefit and was not actually in a partnership with him, and he  also realized that we in the House were not happy with what was coming out of  those negotiations,” said Rep. Raúl R. Labrador, R-Idaho. “We were pretty blunt  with him and the entire leadership team that we have to feel like we have a plan  and a vision, and we’re following up on that plan and that vision.”

“The  discussion about revenue is over,” Boehner said. The speaker says the House  has already voted on two measures to replace the sequester and “shouldn’t have  to pass a third bill.”

Boehner urged Obama and Senate Democrats to present a plan to replace the  sequester that could pass the Democratic-led Senate.

In his new softer tone on the effects of the sequester, Obama says the nation  will survive it, though it would be painful for many people.

Now, even federal employees will begin to feel the pinch. A million, or more,  federal workers may be taking unpaid time off. The prospect of sequestration has  the  government sending furlough notices, effective in April.

An assistant U.S. attorney received a note which read, “This memorandum  notifies you that the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to furlough you no  earlier than 30 days from receipt of this notice.

“We recognize the difficult personal financial implications of any furlough,  no matter how limited its length. We will make every effort to keep you informed  as additional information regarding agency funding becomes available,” the  letter added.

The Social Security Administration sent a notice Thursday to its employees  saying it was seeking to “minimize the risk of furloughs,” including limiting  future hiring.

One person who’s not worried is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He says the  United States could owe “an  infinite amount of money” and not default.

“We are spending money we don’t have,” Mr. Bloomberg explained. “It’s not  like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend  money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going  to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States  federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of  money. … Our debt is so big and so many people own it that it’s preposterous to  think that they would stop selling us more. It’s the old story: If you owe the  bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a  problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more  money.”

Bloomberg also doesn’t think spending cuts are the answer.

“Listen, I’ve worked now in government for 11 years,” he said. “One of the  problems is the definition of ‘waste.’ You think the programs that I want are  waste. And I think the problems that you want are waste. It’s not like somebody  is taking wheelbarrows full of dollar bills and throwing them out the window.  It’s a question of definition, what is ‘waste’ and what is not. Everything we  have was put in by Congress, signed by the president. There was a reason for it,  or a constituency for it. Most of the tax breaks are designed to encourage or  discourage economic activity. There’s a reason for it.”

The economic storm clouds began gathering well before the sequester.

Americans’ personal income made  the biggest drop in January in 20 years. While the administration warned of  dire consequences for the government if the sequestration’s 2.2 percent budget  cut goes into effect, ordinary Americans lost 3.6 percent of their incomes in  the first month of the year, compared to the last month of 2012. That’s a loss  of $505.5 billion dollars to Americans’ wallets.

The Commerce Department claims that if you don’t count such factors as  December dividends to shareholders, income actually increased 0.3 percent in  January. But many companies paid early dividends to avoid upcoming tax hikes.  Additionally, the payroll tax cut expired in January, causing most workers to  pay 2 percent more in taxes this year.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy,  also suffered in January. Spending increased $18.2 billion, or 0.2 percent.  Chris Christopher, Jr. of IHS Global Insight, calls that “anemic” and pointed to  weak retail sales. He blames the payroll tax cut, saying it “hurt many Americans  where it counts – in their pocket books.”

The nation’s largest retailer, Walmart, blames slow sales on higher payroll  taxes, delays in income tax-refund processing and higher gas prices.

Another sign troubles are bigger than the sequester, the Commerce  Department reports the economy grew at a 0.1 percent rate from October  through December, less than forecast.

Something keeping the U.S. stock market from falling may be little change in  inflation. Over the past 12 months prices rose 1.2, the smallest year-to-year  gain since October 2009. The rate compares with the central bank’s goal of 2  percent. Excluding food and energy costs, prices climbed 1.3 percent in January  from the same month in 2012, the smallest year-to-year gain since April  2011.

On Tuesday, Federal  Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly defended the central bank’s monetary  policy before a Senate committee, saying there’s little risk of a spike in  inflation in the near term.

Criticizing that policy, Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, called  Bernanke the biggest dove since World War II.

“You called me a dove, well maybe in some respects I am, but on the other  hand my inflation record is the best of any Federal Reserve chairman in the  postwar period – or at least one of the best,” Bernanke said, citing the 2  percent average inflation rate.

But Bernanke hedged his bet and warned the sequester could threaten the  economy. “The Congress and the administration should consider replacing the  sharp, frontloaded spending cuts required by the sequestration, with policies  that reduce the federal deficit more gradually in the near term but more  substantially in the longer run,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke found more blame elsewhere. “High unemployment has substantial  costs, including not only the hardship faced by the unemployed and their  families, but also the harm done to the vitality and productive potential of our  economy as a whole,” Bernanke said.

And  WND reported the real unemployment rate for December 2012 is closer to 23  percent, not the 7.8 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Commodities expert Jim Rogers, who once managed money with George Soros,  says Bernanke has it all wrong and that his monetary policy is merely  throwing fake money after bad debts.

In his most recent book, Street Smarts, Rogers says Bernanke “knows little  about economics or finance, he has no idea how markets work, and the only thing  he truly understands about currency is how to print it.”

He says Bernanke misread the crisis, and that’s why the economy is stagnant.  Rogers believes the financial crisis was about subprime mortgage borrowers and  European governments not being able to pay their bills. But he says Bernanke has  treated it like a liquidity crisis, flooding the system with cash. That’s led to  an economy without growth, and dogged by the prospect of inflation.

I know why this man is president, but I do not know why he remains  president.

Barack Obama was elected the first time and then was re-elected.

You tell me: How do we explain the man in the Oval Office who is dead set to  grant virtual blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in this country, who  is seemingly dedicated to disarming American citizens, making it virtually  impossible for them to have access to firearms for personal protection and whose  administration, under the guise of “sequestration” to save money, releases into  the general population thousands of illegals from detention with plans to  release thousands more.

The Homeland Security Department released more than 2,000 illegals, and the  plan is to release another 3,000. The figures came from internal documents  reviewed by the Associated Press.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that when the administration was first  confronted with reports of the release, it denied the White House knew anything  about it.

They lie, and everyone swears to it.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also hedged, then admitted she  regretted the way it was done. She actually told NBC she was surprised  to learn of the action. She actually tried to shift blame to “career officials  in the field” – as though she has no responsibility for the people who work  under her.

To make the lying and blame shifting worse, it was reported that an official  was forced to resign but the next day, it was shown that that hadn’t happened,  either.

The New York Post reported that ICE spokesman Brian Hale said the number  released was only several hundred.

What was that I said about liars?

Truth be known, I don’t care whether it was 10, 20, 200 or 2,000,  none of them should have been released, no matter what the supposed  reason.

Who are these people? Why were they being detained? What laws had they  broken, in addition to the fact that they were in this country illegally? Where  are they? What are they doing? If we don’t have the money to pay for their  detention, how do we have the money to track them to be certain they don’t  commit any crimes?

Does anyone in the government care?

Does Obama care?

Not that anyone would know.

What a sad and infuriating farce made worse by government criticism of how AP  reported the story.

Ah yes, kill the messenger.

If and when any one of those criminals confronts an American citizen,  threatening their safety or the security of their possessions or breaks any law,  it will be a travesty of justice. Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and all their  immigration bureaucrats will responsible for the consequences and should be held  personally, legally responsible.

Don’t hold your breath.

We are confronted with Barack Obama, the man in the Oval Office whose family  enjoys the protection of the Secret Service and whose children go to an  expensive private school that has armed guards on duty, who does not want the  average American citizen to enjoy the security of similar protection against  criminals.

Those people released by Obama’s administration are criminals. They pose  potential danger to innocent American citizens, and yet Obama hasn’t had the  decency to address the American public about the situation.

He just ignores it.

One wonders how the people of Arizona, California, Texas and Georgia feel  about their states being the places where these criminals have been set  free.

One wonders how ranchers in those states, already at the mercy of illegals  tramping across their properties and committing felonies, feel now that there  are even more illegals out there and they, American citizens, are their  potential victims.

It must be particularly irksome that their own president and his  administration are behind this travesty and who also want to disarm them.

Whether the illegals are disarmed is moot. They already flout our laws – why  should they care about doing the “right” thing? It doesn’t matter to the  American government. We let them in, give them freebies, forgive their  transgressions and release them to do it all over again.

Break the law, run guns or drugs or people. Rob, steal, assault, destroy  property and put the fear of God into law-abiding American citizens.

And they essentially get a free pass.

Yet we have people like John McCain, a senator from Arizona, a state  particularly hard hit by the crimes of illegals, who espouses amnesty, even if  it’s called a pathway to citizenship.

The only people who should be on a citizenship pathway are those who  follow the law to become American citizens the legal way.

Obama and Napolitano aren’t the only insane ones in Washington. So too, are  McCain and all the others in Congress who are anxious for the possibility of  votes and power.

Every one of them, from top to bottom, should be tossed out of office – but  not before facing impeachment and perhaps jail time with no parole.

It’s only fair.

• "What Democrats Hide:"Find out what the democrats don't want you to know. Read this now.  OnePoliticalPlaza.com