maddogs hideaway

1.The  Sound of Wet Grass: Black Racists' War on Black Women

The  Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has come to trial this week and the best  thing that's been said about it is from Thomas Maguire: "I'm proud to say I live  in a country where the show trials look  more like an SNL [Saturday Night Live] skit."

You  probably won't know that if your source of information about the trial is the  mainstream media and if your lifestyle doesn't permit you to sit in front of the  TV for hours watching the trial. Instead, go to Legal Insurrection, a  blog site run by Clinical Law Professor William A. Jacobson, where a defense  counsel, Andrew Branca, has been summarizing the trial day by day with video  snippets to illustrate his points, or Talk Left where Jeralyn Merritt ,  a noted defense counsel, has been dissecting this nothingburger of a  case.

As  the Friday hearing drew to a close, Branca reported the effective end of the prosecution's misbegotten  case:

A  neighbor, John Good, who witnessed the fight between Trayvon Martin and George  Zimmerman has just devastated the State's case, testifying that he saw the fight  between the two, that Trayvon was on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style, and  that the scream must have come from Zimmerman because Zimmerman was on the  bottom and Trayvon was faced away from the  witness.

To  date, the prosecution has put on a number of witnesses who also confirm  Zimmerman's account of events. There's not one shred of evidence that supports  the prosecution's view of the case. "Taps" should have been the background music  for the key prosecution witness "Dee Dee" whose real name turns out to be Rachel  Jeantel. She was on the phone with Trayvon when the incident occurred and her  letter to Trayvon's mother purportedly  describing the events and her deposition by the Martin's attorney, Crump, form  the heart of the prosecution's case. Her testimony was conceded to be false at  several points and the remainder collapsed on cross-examination. Rick Ballard  said in the middle of her testimony that he pictured the prosecution "laying  back in a nice warm bath this evening, straight razor in hand, trying to  remember the exact location of jugular veins and carotid  arteries."

It  turns out the letter the prosecution relied on was written by someone else, and  while Jeantel signed it she cannot even read the cursive in which it was  written. The Martins' counsel choreographed her account of  the events and he misled the Court about the circumstances.

The  prosecution also was exceedingly unprofessional, while taking pretrial testimony  from her, in having her make her statement in the presence of Trayvon's mother  whom she was manipulated into "helping" by tailoring her testimony to make it  possible for the state to come up with this factually unsubstantiated murder  charge. The prosecution was forced to concede at trial that the witness lied  numerous times and if you watch her in this exchange -- just one example of her  performance -- you can see why the statements of a not very smart witness  coached and manipulated to say things that are untrue rarely survive decent  cross examination: She had said that she could hear the sound of "wet grass"  when the tussle began. She was asked to describe what wet grass sounds like and was  dumbfounded.

But  more important than her lies and incoherence was her admission  that she didn't know who threw the first punch, and if she didn't, with  what did the prosecutors hope to prove the shot wasn't fired in self-defense? As  the week ends there is not a shred of credible evidence from the state of  Florida to counter Zimmerman's self-defense assertion. Not one shred of  evidence. For this a perfectly innocent man 's life has been ruined and he and  his family impoverished. Let that sink in.

The  prosecution deserves to be tarred forever with this unjust prosecution. So  should the Department of Justice, the race baiters who promoted it to keep the  black voters stirred up in time for Obama's reelection. Recall Obama himself  saying if he had a son he'd have looked like Trayvon, and the hundreds of  marchers in hoodies carrying signs demanding this prosecution and carrying signs  with angelic pictures of Trayvon as a kid, not as he was on the night of the  murder -- a large man with a drug habit and a record of  thuggery.

No  one mentions that like Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangnum, Rachel Jeantel was  exploited by her own people -- Crump and Sharpton and Jackson, who so tarnish  the legacy of the civil rights movement by manipulating limited black women to  lie for their own political and economic ends, despite the humiliation they  bring upon these women when the facts finally are made clear. And after  perfectly innocent people have suffered.

2.Throwing Stones and Race Hustler Justice

Jeantel's  testimony hurt the case and the race baiters' drumbeating in other ways as  well.

In  contrast to the claim that Zimmerman (ludicrously dubbed the "white Hispanic" by  the press) was motivated by race -- something even Crump has now tiptoed  away from -- the only evidence of racism is Trayvon's.

Jeantel  testified that Trayvon called Zimmerman what we so ludicrously in an age of  widespread profanity call "the n-word" and characterized him as a "creepy ass  cracker." She made it clear that both terms were regularly used in "her  culture."

At  the very same time that Paula Deen was being vilified for being a racist and her  endorsements and TV show being stripped from her, people rushed in to defend Jeantel's racism.

This  kind of double standard is not helping race relations. It engenders contempt for  those who employ it. As proof I point to the fact that Deen's latest book, not  yet on the shelves, has raced to Number 1 on Amazon. It's the public's way of  saying to the elites they are not buying this story line of innocent blacks in a  racist society. But the race hustlers and their political beneficiaries have  profited so long from this foolishness that there are substantial fears of  nationwide rioting if the lynching in Florida is cancelled -- and it surely will  because no sane jury will convict. Will the Department of Justice, which  also stirred the Trayvon pot,  now act to protect the innocent when the case fails and the riots it had a role  in take place, hurting even more innocent victims? J.  Christian Adams writes:

Right  now, hanging on the door of a federal  employee's office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign  expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin. What this has to do with the  Department of Justice is perhaps a mystery, but not to me.

One  might ponder why the Justice Department Civil Rights Division rushedto Florida in the first place and took sides once  the racial furnace was sufficiently stoked. When Eric Holder's old pal from D.C.  (and a Philadelphia court case), New Black Panther chieftain Malik Zulu Shabazz,  called for a 10,000 strong black-male mob to seize George  Zimmerman, we knew what was in store.

It  wasn't going to be justice.

But  Justice came to Florida anyhow, in the form of the Community Relations Service  of Eric Holder's DOJ. Instead of calming the racial tensions, the DOJ took  sides. Instead of calming the mob, the DOJ joined it -- providing training for the mob and even arranging  a police escort.

This  is justice, race-hustler style. When Malik Zulu Shabazz demands blood, Eric  Holder arrives to deliver a more moderate face to mob anger.

But  notice Holder never condemned the calls for vigilantism. Why would he? We've  learned Holder's sense of justice depends on what the parties look like. He  never has a discouraging word for certain agitators, including Malik Zulu  Shabazz.

3.  Obama and his Friends Still Playing the White Guilt  Card

To  illustrate the effect of sloppy media thinking and the double standard in  reporting you need go no further than to look at this Friday's Washington  Post, where Melinda Henneberger, who quite obviously knows nothing  about affirmative action or the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights  Act, penned this sentence notably illogical, wishy-washy, and  baseless:

we're  also clicking on the Deen-athon because the "Oprah of food," as one of the  cook's 2.7 million Facebook fans callsher, is a symbol and a symptom -- a walking,  talking, crying and deep-frying reminder of how much we still need both  affirmative action and a fully functional Voting Rights Act.

At  the same time her colleague at the paper, Eugene Robinson, to whom everything is  still always Selma and whites always racist and blacks always innocent, writes  to keep the race wars alive. He accuses Deen of being stuck in the past on race while missing  the log in his own eye -- here he is on the Trayvon Martin case:

For  every black man in America, from the millionaire in the corner office to the  mechanic in the local garage, the Trayvon Martin tragedy is personal. It could have been me or one of my sons.  It could have been any of us.

How  many George Zimmermans are out there cruising the streets? How many guys with  chips on their shoulders and itchy fingers on the triggers of loaded handguns?  How many self-imagined guardians of the peace who say the words "black male"  with a sneer?

Meanwhile,  the Obamas are on a hundred-million dollar trip to Africa, with Friday's  papers featuring them looking out of the Goree Island Historical Museum in  Senegal which is likely not what it is said to be  -- an old slave transport facility. Fitting that they  should pick this pretend site to further stir racism and encourage a continuation  of the white guilt -- in most cases utterly unwarranted and in any event not  productive -- that saw Barack win two elections. Michelle  Obama's Mirror:

Only  in America

...could  a man whose African forebears sold blacks into slavery and whose American  forebears owned slaves marry a woman whose lineage includes both slaves and  slave owners. 

I just got back from South Sudan. Most of the country has no access to  electricity, let alone the Internet. For those lucky enough to have a cell  phone, it is usually charged in the market where smart shopkeepers use a  generator to charge the cell phones. Privacy concerns are not huge in a country  that uses cell phones sparingly.

I came back and reviewed my mountain of email and was shocked at the email  from a list serve I subscribe to. It is like the frog in the crock pot. When the  heat is turned up a bit at a time, the frog doesn’t notice he is being  cooked.

Biometrics  databases:

“[The Electronic Frontier Foundation] has been closely following the FBI’s  work to build out its Next Generation Identification (NGI) biometrics database,  which would replace and expand upon the Integrated Automated Fingerprint  Identification System (IAFAS). The new program will include multiple biometric  identifiers, such as iris scans, palm prints, face-recognition-ready photos and  voice data, and that information will be shared with other agencies at the  local, state, federal and international levels. The face recognition component  is set to launch in 2014.

“‘[Next Generation Identification] will result in a massive expansion of  government data collection for both criminal and noncriminal purposes,’ says EFF  staff attorney Jennifer Lynch, who testified before the U.S. Senate on the  privacy implications of facial recognition technology in July of last year.  ‘Biometrics programs present critical threats to civil liberties and privacy.  Face-recognition technology is among the most alarming new developments, because  Americans cannot easily take precautions against the covert, remote, and mass  capture of their images.’”

From Netcraft via Dave Farber on encrypted data:

“Millions of websites and billions of people rely on SSL to protect the  transmission of sensitive information such as passwords, credit card details and  personal information with the expectation that encryption guarantees privacy.  However, recently leaked documents appear to reveal that the NSA, the United  States National Security Agency, logs very high volumes of Internet traffic and  retains captured encrypted communication for later cryptanalysis. The United  States is far from the only government wishing to monitor encrypted internet  traffic: Saudi Arabia has asked for help decrypting SSL traffic, China has been  accused of performing a MITM attack against SSL-only GitHub, and Iran has been  reported to be engaged in deep packet inspection and more, to name but a  few.

“The reason that governments might consider going to great lengths to log and  store high volumes of encrypted traffic is that if the SSL private key to the  encrypted traffic later becomes available – perhaps through court order, social  engineering, successful attack against the website, or through cryptanalysis –  all of the affected site’s historical traffic may then be decrypted at once.  This really would open Pandora’s Box, as on a busy site a single key would  decrypt all of the past encrypted traffic for millions of people.”

From Cironline on the ability to read license plates and feed them to data “fusion  centers”:

“The paperback-size device, installed on the outside of police cars, can log  thousands of license plates in an eight-hour patrol shift. Katz-Lacabe said it  had photographed his two cars on 112 occasions, including one image from 2009  that shows him and his daughters stepping out of his Toyota Prius in their  driveway.

“That photograph, Katz-Lacabe said, made him ‘frightened and concerned about  the magnitude of police surveillance and data collection.’ The single patrol car  in San Leandro equipped with a plate reader had logged his car once a week on  average, photographing his license plate and documenting the time and  location.”

On the ability for the NSA to keep and later listen to a billion phone calls  a day:

“The NSA has a ‘brand new’ technology that enables one billion cell phone  calls to be redirected into its data hoards, according to the Guardian’s Glen  Greenwald, who told a Chicago conference that a new leak of Snowden’s documents  was ‘coming soon.’

“Calling it part of a ‘globalized system to destroy all privacy,’ and the  enduring creation of a climate of fear, Greenwald outlined the capabilities of  the NSA to store every single call while having ‘the capability to listen to  them at any time.’”

From IntelliHub on taking a photo of a police station:

“Randall Thomas told Photography is Not a Crime he was taking photos to  prepare for an upcoming trial stemming from a January arrest in which police  deleted his footage after he had recorded them making an abusive arrest.

“Not that any of that was the cop’s business who harassed him Saturday for  taking photos outside the Police Service Area 3 Housing Bureau in Brooklyn.

“Thomas was placed in a cell and held for almost an hour before he was  released with two citations for disorderly conduct, one for blocking traffic,  the other for obscene language – as if that is not protected by the First  Amendment.

“Regardless, the video Thomas recorded with his smartphone shows he did not  block traffic nor use obscene language in his interaction with Officer Soto,  which begins at 4:30.”

All of these reports are from less than one week’s collection made by Dave  Farber’s list serve.

We are frogs, and we are being cooked by our government.

It’s time to jump out of that pot and organize the good, old-fashioned way we  did in the 1960s.

We need our government to hear us, not though cell phone data collection or  facial recognition software, but from our protests on the streets.

We’d better do this before they know when we are leaving our houses to go to  that demonstration.

Several other eyewitnesses have already testified, as artfully steered by the  defense attorneys, that Good was the only eyewitness to step outside. The  confrontation ended right at his door. His was the only light on.

O’Mara then read from Good’s statement given an hour after the incident: “So  I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other,  either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red  sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of  here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie  was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

“MMA-style” means mixed martial arts. Although Good was a prosecution witness  – if they didn’t call him, the defense surely would have – he confirmed that the  report O’Mara read was accurate. So doing, he all but validated Zimmerman’s  version of the event and established beyond any doubt that it was Zimmerman who  was yelling out for help.

The State had hoped to have “expert” witnesses testify that it was Martin  calling for help, but they have known from day one about Good’s immediate  testimony and have persisted just the same.

The media had no excuse for not anticipating Good’s testimony. Good had  talked to an Orlando TV station the day after the shooting. “The guy on bottom  who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me, ‘help, help,’” Good told  the reporter. “I told them to stop and I was calling 911.”

ABC’s Matt Gutman took the lead in misinforming America. On March 13, Gutman,  two weeks after the shooting, violated just about all canons of good journalism,  tweeting that Zimmerman “shot 17yr old teen bc he was black, wore hoodie walking  slowly.”

Late on March 16, Gutman posted a piece on  the ABC News website that helped set the tone of the coverage to come.

Gutman based its inflammatory headline, “Trayvon Martin Neighborhood Watch  Shooting: 911 Tapes Send Mom Crying From Room,” fully on the word of the  family’s PR hack, Ryan Julison, and admitted as much.

The article implied, although it did not say so specifically, that Sybrina  Fulton left the room in tears because she heard her son scream for help on the  911 calls.

Attorney Natalie Jackson was busy making this point. “You hear a shot, a  clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life,” she was  widely quoted as saying. “Then you hear a second shot.” This remains accepted  wisdom in some of America’s more volatile quarters.

In the accompanying video piece for “Good Morning America” Gutman reinforced  this insinuation. In the process, he may have set a new national record for most  mistakes of consequence in a two-minute news bite:

GUTMAN: It was February 25TH.

TRUTH: It was February 26th.

GUTMAN: Trayvon was staying at his stepmother’s.

TRUTH: Martin was a staying with Brandy Green, a girlfriend of his father’s.  His mother and stepmother lived in greater Miami.

GUTMAN: He left for the store at half-time of the NBA All-Star Game.

TRUTH: He left hours earlier. He was dead before the game started.

GUTMAN: The “gunshots” are triggering outrage.

TRUTH: There was only one gunshot, and it was the media coverage that was  triggering outrage.

GUTMAN: Trayvon was “100 pounds lighter.”

TRUTH: He was less than 50 pounds lighter. The autopsy recorded Trayvon as  weighing 158 pounds. Zimmerman weighed in at the police station at 207, fully  clothed.

GUTMAN: “You can hear him stalk Martin.”

TRUTH: He did not stalk Martin. When the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, who  was following Martin, “OK. We don’t need you to do that,” Zimmerman said “OK”  and stopped. Gutman edited out Zimmerman’s “OK” and followed immediately with  his own comment, “But then came the gunshots.”

GUTMAN: Zimmerman had a record – “battery on a police officer and resisting  arrest.”

TRUTH: The charges had been dropped. Gutman did not mention that fact.

GUTMAN: Police have been accused of “correcting one eyewitness, while  ignoring another.”

TRUTH: Yes, but the Sanford PD did so for good reason. They knew that John  Good was the only fully reliable witness. The  others had seen only shadows.

Whether Gutman and pals can walk back this inflammatory disinformation  campaign when Zimmerman is acquitted remains to be seen. If not, they will have  a whole lot of exciting news to cover.

No warrants and no probable cause have been no problem for the Obama  administration in its work to collect detailed financial information on millions  of Americans, according to a new report.

Wait, you say, wasn’t the Obama administration already collecting details  about phone calls? Yup. And the content of prayers of Christian groups?  Affirmative. And how about the phone records of reporters? Yes, again.

The documents confirming the effort were released today by Judicial  Watch, the Washington watchdog organization that tracks down, investigates  and presses for prosecution of federal crimes.

“The Obama administration’s warrantless collection of the private financial  information of millions of Americans is mind-blowing. Is there anything that  this administration thinks it can’t do?” said Judicial Watch President Tom  Fitton.

“These documents show that the Consumer Financial Protection Board is an  out-of-control government agency that threatens the fundamental privacy and  financial security of Americans. This is every bit as serious as the controversy  over the NSA’s activities.”

It was the National Security Agency that was revealed to have been collecting  data without warrants on the phone calls of millions of Americans.

Judicial Watch said it acquired through a Freedom of Information Act  procedure records revealing some of the government’s recent work.

The report said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has spent millions  of dollars for “the warrantless collection and analysis of Americans’ financial  transactions.”

It explains the fine print also calls for CFPB contractors, who may have that  information, “may be required to share the information with ‘additional  government entities.’”

The watchdog organization began its search for the records following CFPB  chief Richard Cordray’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee in  April.

Among other things, it found that the board, authorized by the 2010  Dodd-Frank financial reform plan, wants large amounts of credit information from  millions of consumers, reportedly for a number of “policy research  projects.”

The broad outline states: “The panel shall include 5 million consumers, and  joint borrowers, co-signers, and authorized users. The initial panel shall  contain 10 years of historical data on a quarterly basis.”

The documents claim that the identities will be “masked,” but ages, birth  dates and census block numbers are to be included.

Fitton told U.S. News that the government plans are a “more direct assault on  American citizens’ reasonable [expectation] of privacy than the gathering of  general phone records.”

Judicial Watch also said it found contracts  that overlapped, so that several credit reporting agencies and accounting  firms would gather, store and share credit card data. Those companies included  Deloitte Consulting, Experian and others.

It found an  $8.4 million deal with Experian was “to track daily consumer habits of  select individuals without their awareness or consent.”

The government admitted that the contractors would, “in performing this  requirement … obtain access to non-public, confidential information, Personally  Identifiable Information (PII), or proprietary information.”

The government documents themselves say: “The initial sample shall be drawn  from current records and historical data appended for that sample as well as  additional samples during the intervening years to make the combines sample  representative at each point in time.”

Among the goals, according to the government, was to “maintain” detailed  “credit information” on Americans.

“The central mission of the CFPB is to make markets for consumer financial  products and services work for Americans – whether they are applying for a  mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer  financial products,” the government said.

While the government agency said data collecting procedures are authorized by  the Dodd-Frank law, it does use “anonymized industry data.”

“The bureau is not receiving data about individual purchase transactions nor  are we receiving any personally identifiable information,” the agency told U.S.  News.

Which is more dangerous to personal liberty in a free society: a renegade who  tells an inconvenient truth about government lawbreaking, or government  officials who lie about what the renegade revealed? That’s the core issue in the  great public debate this summer, as Americans come to the realization that their  government has concocted a system of laws violative of the natural law,  profoundly repugnant to the Constitution and shrouded in secrecy.

The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left  alone. The framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon  government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it.  They did so in the Fourth Amendment, using language that permits the government  to invade that right only in the narrowest of circumstances.

Congress is the chief culprit here, because it has enacted laws that have  lowered the constitutional bar the feds must meet for judges to issue search  warrants. And it has commanded that this be done in secret.

And I mean secret.

The judges of the FISA court – the court empowered by Congress to issue  search warrants on far less than probable cause, and without describing the  places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized – are not permitted  to retain any records of their work. They cannot use their own writing materials  or carry BlackBerries or iPhones in their own courtrooms, chambers or conference  rooms. They cannot retain copies of any documents they’ve signed. Only National  Security Agency staffers can keep these records.

Indeed, when Edward Snowden revealed a copy of an order signed by FISA court  Judge Roger Vinson – directing Verizon to turn over phone records of all of its  113,000,000 U.S. customers in direct and profound violation of the  individualized probable cause commanded by the Constitution – Vinson himself did  not have a copy of that order. Truly, this is the only court in the country in  which the judges keep no records of their rulings.

Judge  Napolitano’s brand new book explains how the government is taking your  constitutional freedoms and how you can fight back: “The Freedom Answer  Book”

At the same time Vinson signed that order, NSA staffers, in compliance with  their statutory obligations, told select members of Congress about it, and they,  too, were sworn to secrecy. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden was so troubled  when he learned this – a terrible truth that he agreed not to reveal – that he  mused aloud that the Obama administration had a radical and terrifying  interpretation of certain national security statutes.

But he did more than muse about it. He asked Gen. James Clapper, the director  of national intelligence, who was under oath and at a public congressional  hearing, whether his spies were gathering data on millions of Americans. Clapper  said no. The general later acknowledged that his answer was untruthful, but he  claimed it was the “least untruthful” reply he could have given. This “least  untruthful” nonsense is not a recognized defense to the crime of perjury.

After we learned that the feds are spying on nearly all Americans, that they  possess our texts and emails and have access to our phone conversations, Gen.  Keith Alexander, who runs the NSA, was asked under oath whether his spies have  the ability to read emails and listen to telephone calls. He answered,  “No, we don’t have that authority.” Since the questioner – FBI agent  turned Rep. Mike Rogers – was in cahoots with the general in keeping Americans  in the dark about unconstitutional search warrants, there was no follow-up  question. In a serious public interrogation, a committee chair interested in the  truth would have directed the general to answer the question that was asked. 

Since that deft and misleading act, former NSA staffers have told Fox News  that the feds can read any email and listen to any phone call, and Alexander and  Rogers know that. So Alexander’s “no,” just like his boss’s “no,” was a lie at  worst and seriously misleading at best.

This is not an academic argument. The oath to tell the truth – “the whole  truth and nothing but the truth” – also makes those who intentionally mislead  Congress subject to prosecution for perjury.

President Obama is smarter than his generals. He smoothly told a friendly  interviewer and while not under oath that the feds are not listening to our  phone calls or reading our emails. He, of course, could not claim that they lack  the ability to do so, because we all now know that he knows they can.

These Snowden revelations continue to cast light on the feds when they prefer  darkness. Whatever one thinks of Snowden’s world-traveling odyssey to avoid the  inhumane treatment the feds visited upon Bradley Manning, another whistleblower  who exposed government treachery, he has awakened a giant. The giant is a public  that has had enough of violations of the Constitution and lies to cover them up.  The giant is fed up with menial politicians and their media allies demonizing  the messenger because his message embarrasses the government by revealing that  it is unworthy of caring for the Constitution.

Think about that: The very people in whose hands we have reposed the  Constitution for preservation, protection, defense and enforcement have  subverted it.

Snowden spoke the truth. Knowing what would likely befall him for his  truthful revelations and making them nevertheless was an act of heroism and  patriotism. Thomas Paine once reminded the framers that the highest duty of a  patriot is to protect his countrymen from their government. We need patriots to  do that now more than ever.

Saint Patrick may have been recognized for driving the snakes out of Ireland,  but this past week one of them slithered back in.  Obama is the personification  of an elapid that is now without the appendages some believe the serpent that  beguiled Eve in the Garden had possessed before it was made to slither upon the  ground.  That said, he has not shed the character of the personage incarnate in  that first serpent.

Obama took time out from his attendance at the G8 Summit in Enniskillen to  attack the Catholic Church and to deliberately attempt to undermine the  authority of Archbishop Gerhard Muller, prefect of the Congregation of the  Doctrine of the Faith.

But Obama sees Catholic schools as the bane to social stability and  antagonistic toward his worldview and social order.  He said, “If towns remain  divided – if Catholics have their schools and Protestants have theirs, if we  can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden  – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

I am convinced that his words were carefully chosen and intended to undermine  the authority of the Catholic Church while providing him a thin veneer of  deniability. 

Obama is deeply resentful of the stand the Catholic Church has taken against  his health-care legislation.  And true to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy,  he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church before the audience he did.

Obama had his educational purview shaped by the Marxist pedophile Frank  Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright. That does not mean we should  allow his views to corrupt ours.

Catholic-school education remains one of the finest educations children can  receive.  I applaud the verbiage of the archbishop when he said, “Catholic  education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to grow up with  Jesus.”   Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up  with instruction about homosexuality.  He would rather have children grow up as  his daughters (according to the words from his mouth), learning about abortion  and birth control devices.  He wants children to grow up in failing schools with  poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves  had received.

But for those of us who believe that the Word of God is final and that  Christ-centered education is critical, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1  Corinthians 15:33 are undeniable truth.  Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil  company corrupts good morals.”  Having children brainwashed into believing  they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from  high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we  want for our progeny.

When it comes to education, more than ever the Word of God as written by the  Apostle Paul is not an option – it is a mandate for Godly living.  “Wherefore,  come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. …” (2 Corinthians  6:17).

There is something else troubling about Obama.  He has made great pretense  pursuant to his Irish ancestry.  “The Trinity heritage company Eneclann …  [claims] that Obama’s Irish heritage is better documented than that of other  U.S. presidents including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and even John F. Kennedy.”  (“Michelle Obama and daughters trace their Irish roots at Trinity College during  stay,” irishcentral.com, June 18, 2013)

It’s interesting that the Obamas would boast such heritage when – as  I wrote in a recent column – he believes, “If [black] nationalism could  create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self  respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, of the inner turmoil  it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.” (“Dreams From My  Father: A Story of Race And Inheritance,” page 284)  For those who miss the  exact point he was making, he was saying that he would sacrifice his white  mother and white grandparents on the altar of Black Nationalism.

I also wrote in the same article, “There resides within Obama a hatred of  white people that explains in part why he is so conflicted.  In his book  ‘Dreams,’ he opines that, as was the case with Malcolm X, if he were able ‘he  would purge the white blood from my veins’” (ppg. 101-102 paperback edition).   Obama by his own admission, referred to blacks who dated whites and blacks who  spoke without slang as ‘Uncle Toms.’  He by his own admission called black  students who associated with white students ‘half-breeds.’”

Two observations remain.  If blacks associating with whites make them  “half-breeds” what does his ancestry make him?  And if he, again by his own  admission, abhors his “white blood,” why does he feel the need to boast about  his Irish ancestry?

I must note that the Irish papers refused to call him the president, opting  instead to refer to him as “the American politician.”  Touché.

By the time you read this, it may already have been voted upon and settled,  just waiting for the magic signature of the man in the Oval Office – or, in  other words: “The Great Oz” gets what he wants again, and the people be  <snip>ed.

It’s euphemistically called “immigration reform,” but in reality it’s a  massive sell-out of the United States to Third World illegals who have taken  advantage of our laxity, stupidity, liberal racial guilt and the death-wish of  the Democratic Party to gain political power that it hopes will put them in  office forever.

Did you notice when Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said that “we” – meaning the  Republican Party – have to pass comprehensive immigration reform because  that’s “the only way we can get back in the good graces of the Hispanic  community”?

According to him, if the GOP supports the immigration bill, then all those  Hispanics will be their friends and maybe – just maybe – a Republican might just  get elected again.

Sorry, Lindsey, baby – I guess I missed that chapter in my study of  history and the Constitution. Where does it say we have to pander to racial  groups to have the republic function as intended?

And if I may – just what is a “Hispanic” anyway? Is it someone from  Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America, Puerto Rico, parts of the  Caribbean, Cuba, or?

How do we categorize all those Asian, Middle Eastern, African and European  illegals?

Or is a Hispanic just anyone who’s not a WASP?

For those who forgot that racist terminology, it means “white,  Anglo-Saxon Protestant.”

I guess that’s you, Lindsey, even if you have a thick, Southern accent on  demand.

But those who came to this country through Ellis Island in the early days of  the 20^th century, those ominous “dark” Italians and others from  Southern Europe, didn’t fit WASP society

Those people were discriminated against because they didn’t speak English.  They looked “different,” sounded different and worshipped that “mysterious”  religion headed by a pope in Rome.

I know what that’s about because I have people like that in my family. I  remember them telling me what it was like, and believe me, it wasn’t nice.

But those people and millions of others who were “different” because of  looks, language and religion came here anyway for a better life. They followed  the rules when it wasn’t easy to get approved by the officials on Ellis  Island.

Once here, they got no special government assistance. They made their way in  the jungle that life can be, no matter who or what you are. In the process, they  became Americans. Not hyphenated citizens, but people who became part of the  country and lived to help make this country the power that it became on so many  levels.

However, over the years, something changed. And, oh my, the descendants of  those people and others today are changing the rules and, in the process,  changing the very nature of our country.

On another level, in the quest over the years to eliminate religion from our  culture, we have also moved to eliminate honestly and respect for law.

How else to explain the apparent acceptance by so many in government, the  media, religion, academia and other groups to ignore the fact that an “illegal  immigrant” is by definition someone who has deliberately ignored and broken our  laws.

They have come into the country illegally, worked here, often using fake  documentation of citizenship, taken advantage of our social welfare system and  gaining food, housing, medical care, education, drivers licenses, jobs,  unemployment funds and so much more.

By definition, they’re entitled to none of that.

Despite that, the elites in government today, threatened by the  aggressiveness and demands of racist immigrant organizations, defend that  outright theft of our resources – money that should be used for the people who  are legal citizens who may be in need.

Despite that, those elite are not only willing, but anxious to forgive the  fact that these people have broken our laws – whether they crossed the border  illegally or overstayed their visas.

Not only will they forgive those illegalities, but they’re eager to reward  them with the most precious gift a country can bestow on anyone: legal  citizenship.

Don’t think it’s just the Republicans who have mush for brains on this  issue.

The man who is president, speaking in the East Room of the White House to an  immigration-friendly group, said clearly, Americans “owe” immigration  reform to illegals with the promise of a pathway to citizenship.

We owe them?

Really, Barack? Really?

For what? What’s the tradeoff for the benefit of the country, or does it  really just boil down to votes and hoping to ensure Democrats get full control  of the country forever?

Oh, and a good dose of assuaging liberal guilt for all the things they  believe this country has done to the detriment of illegals. What they might be  thinking of, I have no idea.

It’s shameful – and in my opinion, treasonous – that so many elected  politicians, from the president on down, want to sell us out.

I just heard Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the news say that the new law is a  “pathway to satisfy the demands of the country.”

Wrong, Harry. Patriotic Americans do not want to reward illegals.

Patriotic Americans want the border sealed, illegal immigration stopped and  those who get through returned to their country and employers punished for  hiring them,

In other words, enforce the laws we already have.

We don’t need new ones that cheapen our citizenship and demean our  country.

It’s as if President Obama believes he’s still in the faculty lounge at  Harvard glamorizing leftist ideals, seemingly oblivious that he is actually  president now and that his duties require him to work on truly pressing matters  instead of fantasizing about Utopia.

He is finally approaching the hot seat. Endless scandals are dogging his  Teflon. The young voter demographic is going south on him. The foreign media are  lampooning him. The economy still tanks.

But in Berlin, with the disposition of Alfred E. Neuman, the blind  destructiveness of Mr. Magoo and the flimsily emulated elegance of JFK, he  lectured the world on the urgency of adopting his slightly modified  faculty-lounge agenda.

As if having freshly emerged from a nuclear freeze seminar, Obama spoke  dreamily of arms reduction between the United States and Russia. Never mind that  rogue nations are on a fast track to developing nuclear capabilities and that  Obama has already scaled down our vital missile defense systems, gutted our  military space research and development and shelved jet fighter programs. Rather  than recognize the ever-growing dangerousness of the world, Obama defers to his  reality-averse ideology. In his mind, after all, the war on terror is already  over.

Conspicuously bereft of the phony magic that accompanied him on his 2008  trip, he told a shrinking German audience that climate change is “the global  threat of our time.” This national-sovereignty-eschewing executive of the world  said: “With a global middle class consuming more energy every day, this must now  be an effort of all nations, not just some, for the grim alternative affects all  nations. More severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees,  coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise – this is the future we must  avert.”

Yes, global warming, er, climate change is conveniently apocalyptic, because  it is flexible enough to accommodate any and all disastrous events – natural or  manmade, weather-related or otherwise, and events that are completely  contradictory. The theory is broad enough that it can never be discredited, even  if its proponents are caught scandalously manipulating the data. If we have more  tornadoes and hurricanes or fewer, if we have milder summers and winters or  harsher ones, if the Earth has been cooling for the past 15 years and even if  bitter clingers are stockpiling AK-47s at an unprecedented degree, you can be  darn sure global warming is the culprit. So of course it’s the most pressing  problem of our time.

In fact, if we would just tame this dread monster, we wouldn’t need religion  anymore, because man and nature would have achieved perfectibility. Of course,  for global warming zealots, environmentalism is the one true religion, and faith  in God (save Gaia) is passe.

I am nonetheless laboring in vain to divine Obama’s perceived causal  connection between climate change and the economic calamity he’s presiding over,  including our ever-exploding national debt, but I assure you there is one.

With his charisma deflating like a punctured balloon and his rhetoric stale,  flat and irrelevant, he struck out, as well, in Northern Ireland, where he  either clumsily or intentionally offended Catholics with his remarks on  segregated, sectarian schools.

Obama said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and  buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another,  if fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that encourages division; it  discourages cooperation.”

While Obama is adamant about Muslim sensitivities, to the point of  deliberately ignoring jihadist behavior in security investigations, he has  almost gone out of his way to offend Catholics and other Christians, from  abortion to conscience rights to embryonic stem-cell research. And it’s  working.

Catholic World News reacted with this: “Ironically, President Obama made his  comments just as Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for  the Doctrine of the Faith, told a crowd in Scotland that religious education  upholds the dignity of the human person. Archbishop Muller said that Catholic  schools should promote ‘all that is good in the philosophies of societies and  human culture.’”

The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “Another example of what this man wants: total  isolation of any religious values in the private sphere alone. President Obama  is working either to intimidate or legislate or even TAX religious freedom out  of the public square.”

Isn’t it a bit bizarre that a man who trades in divisiveness is so quick to  lecture others about disunity? Isn’t it pathetic that in the very process of  urging others toward unity, he alienates large segments of his audience?

In the end, Obama couldn’t be more clueless about the problems really  plaguing America and the world or more clueless about his cluelessness – sort of  the Anti-socrates.

Not only is Obama’s stock plunging in the United States, but his probable  ambition to be president of the world also may be in jeopardy.

When former spy Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the federal  government is spying on most Americans, most Americans were surprised and  unhappy. But half of official Washington yawned before it roared. Somehow the  people in the government had a pretty good idea of what government spies are  doing, and they more or less approve of it – but not all of them.

Politicians as diverse as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Sen.  Dianne Feinstein called Snowden a traitor. So did former Vice President Dick  Cheney, and President Obama said that for once Cheney’s words were music to his  ears. On the other hand, former Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Republican Sen.  Rand Paul, my Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly and I have all referred to  Snowden as a hero.

The NSA is America’s domestic spying apparatus. Its budget is secret. It will  soon occupy the largest federal building on the planet. It often hires outside  contractors to do much of its work. One of those contractors is Booz Allen  Hamilton. Booz Allen’s co-chair is former Adm. John M. McConnell, who once  headed the NSA. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths.  The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be  exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the  Constitution.

Shortly after Snowden began his work with the NSA, he came to the realization  that he could not comply with both oaths. He realized that by keeping secret  what he learned, he was keeping the American public in the dark about what its  government is doing outside the Constitution in order to control the public.

What is it doing?

The government persuaded a federal judge with a perverse understanding of the  values and history and language of the Constitution to sign a series of orders  directing the largest telephone company in the U.S. and the largest Internet  providers in the world to make available to the government’s prying eyes all  sorts of information about nearly all of us, thus allowing the feds to monitor  our use of land line and wireless phones, as well as our use of emails and  texts. The numbers are staggering. Verizon has greater than 113,000,000 U.S.  customers who generate or receive more than 1 billion phone calls every day.  Americans text and email one another using the services of Microsoft, Google,  Yahoo, Facebook and others many billions of times every day.

Judge  Napolitano’s brand new book explains how the government is taking your  constitutional freedoms and how you can fight back: “The Freedom Answer  Book”

The judge’s order was profoundly unconstitutional, as is the section of the  Patriot Act that authorized it. The Constitution requires that the government  demonstrate to all judges being asked to sign search warrants specific evidence  of criminal behavior contained in the things to be seized. And it requires that  the warrants themselves particularly describe the places to be searched or the  persons or things to be seized.

In this case, the things being seized consist of digital data about nearly  everyone in America, which in the hands of a skilled spy can be used to monitor  our physical movements and communications and, according to former CIA Director  David Petraeus, to predict them. The Patriot Act facilitates these dragnets by  unconstitutionally reducing the standard for the issuance of search warrants.  The president, who refuses to deny that his spies possess the content of  our communications, claims they are not listening to it or reading it.

Who would believe President Obama?

One of the spies who knew the power he and his fellow spies had and who had  access to the innermost thoughts of hundreds of millions of us – and who  disbelieved the president – was Edward Snowden. Snowden realized the  unconstitutional nature of what the government was doing and concluded that he  could not be faithful to both of his oaths. One of those oaths – to retain  secrets – is grounded in a federal statute that requires secrecy and punishes  the exposure of secrets. The other oath is grounded in the Constitution, which  is the supreme law of the land and protects the natural right to be left alone  and does not punish the governmental violation of that right.

When confronted with the conflicting oaths, Snowden opted for the higher  good: fidelity to the supreme law of the land. Hence, in order to protect the  privacy of us all, Snowden violated the lesser oath and upheld the greater one.  He could not serve two masters when the lesser of the two (fidelity to the  government’s laws) facilitated a corruption of the greater of the two (the  primacy to the Constitution).

He’s a traitor, the establishment roared. He’s a high school dropout. He left  the Army. He admits to having lots of sex with his girlfriend. He fled to Hong  Kong.

Who cares?

He understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if we don’t control the  government, the government will control us. That’s why the Washington  establishment yawned when we learned what it knew and now roars because Snowden  challenged it. Those in power want to stay there and will misuse the  Constitution to do so for as long as they can get away with it, no matter to  which political party they belong. Any government that secretly spies on nearly  all the population is aiming to control the population.

Snowden knew that this massive violation of the constitutionally guaranteed  rights of nearly every American, orchestrated and operated in secrecy, is  corrupting the Constitution and empowering the corruptors. It was that  understanding plus a willingness to face down those in power who lack fidelity  to the Constitution and who can do him harm that constituted the behavior of a  hero.

Is he flawed?

The only hero who was not flawed was nailed to a tree 2,000 years ago because  those He came into the world to save rejected Him.

By now most are aware that Obama without invitation injected himself into the  Trayvon Martin shooting, saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin.   But there was another shooting that took place on March 2, 2008, about which not  only did Obama fail to call the family, he did not give the matter the slightest  regard.

It’s telling that Obama would compare the male progeny he never had to a  drug-using street thug gangsta’ wannabe like Martin and completely ignore the  brutal, cold-blooded murder of a young man who didn’t use drugs, wasn’t involved  in gangs, carried a Spider-Man backpack and was eyeing scholarships to Rutgers  and Stanford. 

Since the Supreme Court legalized the murder of unborn children vis-à-vis  abortion (1973-present), nearly 19 million unborn black children have been  murdered.  Obama not only supports this mass murder of the unborn, but he has  said that Planned Parenthood “does good work” and in a recent speech asked God  to bless the organization.  Depending on which numbers you ascribe to (the CDC  set the number at 43.9 million in 2011), the total number of black Americans is  40-44 million.  Put differently, Obama publicly champions the murdering of  approximately 2.3 unborn black children for every one black child born.

And that is the just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama and  blacks.  Specific to that point, let’s go back to my opening paragraph.  As I  indicated, Obama personally interjected himself into what many, myself included,  believe was a clear case of self-defense when George Zimmerman shot and killed  Martin as Martin was reportedly slamming Zimmerman’s head into the ground. 

Jamiel Shaw Jr. and Sr.

But in the case of Jamiel Shaw Jr., his only offense was being born black –  an illegal-alien Mexican shot him to death because of the color of young Mr.  Shaw’s skin.  Not only has Obama ignored the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr., but he  has taken it upon himself to push amnesty for the millions of illegal-alien  criminals in the country. 

It is well-known by law enforcement agencies nationwide that the Mexican  mafia and Mexican gangs are committed to ridding blacks from the areas they have  usurped after making their illegal entry into America.  And Obama seeks to  reward these illegals with amnesty.

Jamiel Shaw Jr. was minding his own business, walking from school to his  home.  He was only three blocks away when he telephoned his father to say, “Be  right home dad, I’m right around the corner.”

Tragically, the fact is that Jamiel Shaw Jr. did not make it home.  The fact  is that the next time his father saw him, he was lying face down in a pool of  his own blood just outside his home.  The fact is that Pedro Espinoza, an  illegal-alien Mexican career-criminal gunned down Jamiel Shaw Jr. strictly  because he was black.  The facts are that Jamiel Shaw Jr.’s mother, a U.S. Army  soldier deployed in Iraq at the time, had to fly back alone on a flight that  must have seemed like an eternity.  She had survived combat in a foreign land,  but her child was unable to survive the murderous rampage of illegal-alien  savages in the town she and her family called home.  And, Obama wants to reward  these illegal aliens with amnesty.

Compounding the grief of losing their son, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are made to  suffer more injury because Los Angeles is a “sanctuary city.”  Simply put, such  “sanctuary cities” are safe havens for illegal aliens in which they can commit  heinous crimes and if they are arrested not be turned over to Immigration and  Customs Enforcement for deportation.  And, Obama fully supports abrogation of  justice.

Jamiel Shaw Jr. is an innocent victim of yet another government-sponsored and  government-approved machination for the extermination of blacks.  And just as  with Planned Parenthood, Obama’s actions unambiguously prove he endorses same. 

Obama is willing to use a situation like that of Martin’s death as a means to  foment racial antipathy toward whites.  But there are no Al Sharptons, no Jesse  Jacksons, no New Black Panther Party protests, no national press coverage, and  NO OBAMA comments in the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr.

The grotesque elephant in the middle of the room that goes practically  unaddressed –  unlike the fallacious allegations that George Zimmerman shot  Martin because he black – in the case of Jamiel Shaw Jr.: He was murdered by a  Mexican illegal alien specifically because he was black.  And, Obama is  silent.

It’s not just that government collects so much data on Americans that bothers  me.

It’s what the government does and doesn’t do with the data that  makes it worse.

Gohmert was grilling Mueller over the FBI’s abject failure at preventing the  April 15 Boston Marathon bombing by neglecting to investigate their mosque,  founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted of supporting terrorism. He  also pointed out the FBI had a tip from Russia that one of the Tsarnaev brothers  had been radicalized in a visit to Chechnya prior to the attack.

“The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15  attacks,” Gohmert said. “If the Russians tell you that someone has been  radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get  the articles of incorporation as I have for the group that created the Boston  mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended and you find out the name Alamoudi.”

Mueller accused Gohmert of not having his facts straight, for which he should  be cited for contempt of Congress. It is Mueller who didn’t have his facts  straight – even admitting he didn’t know about who founded the mosque.

This little fact was reported in  WND in 2003 – a full year before Alamoudi pleaded guilty for conducting illegal  transactions with the Libyan government and playing a role in a conspiracy to  assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah! Yet the FBI director didn’t know?  Why didn’t he know? The FBI was conducted multicultural outreaches to the mosque  prior to the attack, yet it was oblivious to its history? Incredible.

That’s an illustration of why too much information in the wrong hands – and  make no mistake about it, the government’s hands are the wrong hands – is so  dangerous. Too much information sometimes obscures the obvious.

Islamic Society of Boston Mosque was, and remains to this day, a breeding  ground for the kind of Muslim extremism that represents a grave threat to  national security and the safety of the American public.

What is Mueller doing about that?

Nothing.

If a church had that kind of history, its charter would have been pulled long  ago and those responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism would be locked up  in Guantanamo. You know it, and I know it. But the FBI closes its eyes to this  kind of violent and explosive hatred when those responsible are followers of  Muhammad.

I encourage you to watch the fiery exchange as it was captured on CSPAN last  Thursday.

It’s time for Mueller to go. I know he is a short-termer and leaving office  soon. But it’s not soon enough.

This guy is not exactly Elliott Ness.

He’s been in the job too long – since a week before Sept. 11, 2001.

He obviously didn’t learn enough from that experience.

It’s time for an immediate change.

It’s also good to know there are at least a few members of Congress who know  what’s really going on in this country – people like Louis Gohmert.

It’s also time to dismantle the surveillance state on general principle. It’s  un-American to the core. But there’s another good reason to destroy it:  Government not only ignores the vital information at its fingertips, it also  misuses it, misinterprets it, fails to connect the dots and misses the forest  for the trees because of the overwhelming amount of data it collects.

I don’t know what’s scarier – the fact that government collects information  from every American surreptitiously or that it uses all the wrong criteria in  figuring out who really represents a threat to the safety and security of our  country and citizenry.

Recognizing he was ultimately in charge and responsible as the accountable  leader of the free world, President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that  simply said, “The buck stops here.”

I’ve got one, too. All real leaders do. 

You may have noticed that regardless of the numerous scandals plaguing his  administration, our chief executive officer and former community ACORN  organizer, Mr. Obama, has never said he is ultimately responsible or accountable  for anything. Chicago schooled him well in the art of playing dirty  politics.

Not only does he refuse to take any responsibility, Mr. Obama has refused to  tell our gun-running attorney general to appoint an independent counsel to  investigate the numerous scandals that are now derailing his presidency.

Even if Attorney General “Fast and Furious” Eric Holder appointed a so-called  independent counsel, few in the country would believe the individual would be  truly independent. The political fix is always with this  bunch.

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

Instead, the American public is told by the supposedly most transparent  administration in history that Fast & Furious was hatched by low-level  personnel at the Phoenix Department of Justice office, that dragging their feet  to approve conservative organizations as tax exempt was the result of an IRS  office in Cincinnati, that the reason our embassy in Benghazi was attacked and  four Americans killed was the result of an Internet video, no one knew anything  about the DOJ monitoring the Associated Press, and that those Philadelphia Black  Panthers weren’t really committing numerous felonies on film, etc., etc., etc.,  ad nauseum.

In other words, the Obama administration believes the American  people have the word “dunce” painted on our foreheads. They believe  they can get away with anything.

In order to get at the truth of what really happened in Benghazi, who really  authorized Fast & Furious, who authorized the delay in processing  conservative tax-exempt organizations and who knew about it, who authorized the  Benghazi lies that Ms. Rice spewed on the Sunday morning talk shows, etc., a  truly independent truth demanding counsel with subpoena powers needs to be  appointed.

And who is the only person who can appoint an independent counsel to  investigate these scandals? Attorney General Holder, who, like his boss,  also refuses to accept responsibility for anything.

In one of the dumber moves by the U.S. Congress, it gave up the  responsibility to appoint independent counsels to the Department of Justice in  1999. Due to this thunderously dumb move, the fox now guards the hen  house.

These scandals are potentially much larger than what Tricky Dicky was charged  with back in 1974 when a young lawyer by the name of Hillary Clinton was on the  House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry staff. Interestingly, young  Mrs. Clinton, stepchild of her America-hating hero, Saul Alinsky, was  essentially fired from her position for unethical behavior. She should have  been stripped of her law license.

Fast-forward 35 years or so, and Mrs. Clinton was our secretary of state when  Benghazi occurred. Surely Mrs. Clinton would support an independent counsel  to investigate the events that led to the deaths of four Americans on her  watch. What say you, Mrs. Clinton? What difference would that  make?

No one is affirming guilt by the Obama administration. What Americans  want is the truth and for our politicians to accept responsibility and to be  accountable.

The buck stopped with Harry Truman. No one knows where the buck stops  with the Obama administration, and it is high time that we the people demand  answers and accountability. Transparency has two meanings, and we can see clean  through our government’s never-ending scams these days.

One of the many bombshells he dropped was the news that a certified document  examiner with 20 years’ experience had closely examined the “birth certificate”  and had concluded that it was the most obvious forgery he had seen in those 20  years.

The examiner was not making a party political point, for he is a registered  Democrat.

Mike Zullo’s investigation has now continued for almost two years. He has  amassed many thousands of pages of evidence. His draft investigation report is  already more than 300 pages long, and he reckons it will be 700 pages before it  is complete.

There is some explosive evidence that he has not yet disclosed, because it  concerns third parties who may be connected with the forgery.

His determination is commendable. But there is one question the Obots raise  that now needs an answer. If it is so very plain that the “birth certificate” is  forged, why has Sheriff Arpaio been unable to put the matter before any court?  Why is Obama still in the White House and not in the jailhouse?

Part of the answer lies in the terrified reluctance even of Fox News to cover  the story properly. Fox calls itself “fair, balanced, and unafraid.” But it is  afraid. Very afraid.

A concerned citizen sent every congressman, every senator, every state  governor and attorney general, every member of Obama’s Cabinet, every member of  the Democratic and Republican National Committees and every member of the  Supreme Court a copy of my own briefing paper summarizing the evidence for  forgery. Fewer than half a dozen replies were received. There are a lot of  fraidy-cats in your governing class.

I asked one congressman why he had done nothing about the forgery. He  replied: “It is unquestionably a forgery. We all know that. But you, with your  experience of what the left will do to the reputations of those who challenge  it, know that if any of us were to raise this issue we would be subjected to the  same hatred, vilification and organized reputational damage that you have had to  endure because you challenged them on climate change.”

He added, “Scientifically and economically, your challenge was correct. But  they didn’t care about that. They did their level best to trash your reputation  anyway. I value my reputation, and I dare not take the risk of having it  destroyed.”

So there is no media pressure to bring the matter to court, and no political  pressure either. A state of such fear and funk now subsists in the United States  that no one will touch the birth certificate issue.

And that is a shame, because the in-your-face forged “birth certificate” is  arguably the biggest news story of our generation. In defiance of your  Constitution, the current occupant of the White House clings to office even  though his endorsement of the bogus document creates serious doubt about whether  he is entitled to hold that office, and still more serious doubt about his  fitness to hold it even if he were constitutionally entitled.

Naturally, the Obots have done their best to interfere with the sheriff’s  investigation. A trumped-up Justice Department investigation of him for  allegedly doing his job eventually ran into the sand. And an attempt to recall  him almost immediately after he was handsomely re-elected has also now failed. 

Now that other sheriffs and law enforcement officers have had some elements  of the fraud explained to them, even if Mike Zullo and the sheriff were unable  to persuade the attorney general of Arizona to do his constitutional duty, it is  now clear that Obama will not survive the fraud. It is only a matter of time  before some public-spirited citizen takes the short, simple, inexpensive stops  that will bring him to book.

Step 1: Commission reports from court-certified specialists in typewriter  analysis and separately in electronic document forgery.

Step 2: Refer the reports to a mathematician so that he can confirm the  near-zero probability that a document containing as many errors as this one can  be genuine.

Step 3: Put the reports and the mathematical analysis before a federal  district court and ask it for orders obliging Hawaii to release the original  documentation to forensic specialists acting for law enforcement.

There is actually no need for any further investigation. There is quite  enough evidence to obtain such orders right now.

Consider, for instance, the typewriter irregularities in the White House  document. Some specialists say they do not like to rely on typewriter anomalies.  However, as part of the case against a suspect document, they have their place. 

Typewriter analysis has a unique value in that, unlike electronic anomalies  that require specialist knowledge to understand them, typewriter anomalies are  visible. Anyone can see them once they are pointed out. They are as plain as the  nose on your face.

Especially for WND’s readers, I have updated a report that I compiled last  year on the numerous typewriter errors in the White House document. The  pdf document is available at this link.

Here is my challenge to the Obots. Provide a rational explanation for the  irregularities I have identified in my report. Whether or not the typewriter  errors are as serious as I consider them to be, there are many other errors.

So know this: Mike Zullo’s net is closing in, and – however many reputations  you try to trash for the sake of saving your fallen hero – Black Jesus is  doomed.

My American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI, colleague Robert Spencer and  I flew to Tennessee Tuesday to join throngs of patriots and freedom lovers, all  happy warriors who had converged in Manchester, Tenn., to oppose the latest  Obama administration salvo against the freedom of speech – a seminar led by an  Obama-appointed U.S. attorney on how civil rights laws could and should be used  to shut down speech deemed “inflammatory” against Muslims (a label that has been  used before to shut down truthful speech about jihad and Islamic  supremacism).

This was a fight for the very soul of America in a very small town:  Manchester, Tenn., a town no bigger than 10,000 people. (Almost 2,000 people  were there.) This was the perhaps unlikely venue for a seminar led by a U.S.  attorney and an FBI special agent on how “inflammatory” speech against Muslims  violated civil rights laws. Nowhere was it ever explained how there could be  honest examination of Islam’s teachings of jihad that wouldn’t be “inflammatory”  – and that was just the point. 

What was really beautiful was that when the event started, more than 600  people couldn’t even get in, but they stayed outside and held a freedom rally.  They weren’t missing much – unless they were in the mood to be admonished and  hectored as xenophobes, bigots and racists by an Islamic supremacist spokesman  and two Obama officials who steadfastly refused to address the elephant in the  room: the reality of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, no matter how many  times the boisterous crowd called them on their nonsense.

U.S. Attorney Bill Killian gave a PowerPoint presentation on hate crimes and  hate speech. From beginning to end, it was full of condescension, smears,  charges that the crowd was racist and thinly veiled threats that truthful speech  about Islam could be prosecuted. Never once did he address the fact that people  aren’t concerned about Muslims because of racism and xenophobia, but because of  the reality of jihad terror and the uniform denial and obfuscation, and  victimhood posturing that follows from Muslim communities after every jihad  attack.

Killian even stooped so low as to claim a sharp rise in “religiously  motivated hate crimes,” without ever informing the crowd that he was lumping in  anti-Semitic hate crimes (which are at worldwide record levels, largely due to  Islamic anti-Semitism) with anti-Muslim hate crimes. FBI special agent Kenneth  Moore was little better. Both echoed the Islamic supremacist speaker’s opening  remarks, all about how the people of Tennessee had to learn to be welcoming of  people who were different.

The media coverage of our free-speech rally and the anti-free-speech event  was typically deceptive and mendacious. One would think that the industry that  has the most to lose from restrictions on free speech would fight the fascism.  But you would be wrong. These tools are so in the bag for the Obama regime that  the knaves are attacking the patriots (and there are many of us) who are  standing between freedom and tyranny.

The headline of every news story should have been “Obama’s Department of  Justice seeks to criminalize free speech.” Instead, the headlines spun the  Muslim victimhood myth narrative: Muslim outreach program disrupted by  racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigots. Nothing on the constitutional putsch.  They didn’t bury the lede; they never recovered the body.

USA Today’s headline was “Tenn. Muslim group’s forum disrupted by protesters.” UPI  went with “Protesters, hecklers disrupt Muslim forum in Tennessee.” And  WBIR-TV’s headline was “Protesters disrupt Tenn. Muslim group’s meeting.” Nowhere in  the coverage did the media deign to mention why folks were there. People came to  protest Killian’s vow to criminalize criticism of Islam on social media. Folks  were boisterous, and well they should be. Does anyone think we should go quietly  into the night? The Department of Justice and FBI, taking their orders from  Islamic supremacist groups, said the meeting would be an open forum. It was even  titled “Public Discourse.” But they changed the rules. Instead of an open forum,  they said no questions. Instead, we were told to write questions on index cards.  Yeah, uh huh. And, of course, at the end of hours of condescension and  accusations of racism, they only read two questions.

Yes, people called them on it. Yes, people grimaced and moaned when Holder’s  name was mentioned. He is second only to Obama in greatest threats to our  freedoms.

I was there. It was a great American moment. Americans aren’t going to sit  quietly while our freedom of speech is taken away, and are never, ever, going to  submit and stop telling the truth about the jihad that threatens us all. We are  an army.

Just try to wrap your arms around the magnitude of defiance and chutzpah that  led to and accompanied President Obama’s appointment of the discredited Susan  Rice as national security adviser. But don’t let this outrage distract you from  his equally disturbing appointment of leftist Samantha Power to replace Rice as  U.N. ambassador.

Though Democrats and their supporting liberal media, with a few notable  exceptions, have aggressively downplayed the multifaceted Benghazi scandal, none  of them has laid a glove on the irrefutable claim that Rice delivered the  talking points that had been altered by the administration to distort the facts  in order to mitigate any damage to Obama’s re-election efforts.

In a piece for the Washington Post explaining her decision to withdraw, Rice  did anything but acknowledge her wrongdoing. She said, “I have never sought in  any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. … Even before I was  nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a  wholly false picture of me.”

Well, if she didn’t seek to mislead the American people, then someone higher  than her in the administration sought to and did mislead her and used her to  deceive the people by repeating a steady barrage of manufactured lies to paint a  wholly false picture of what precipitated the terrorist attack on our  mission.

We knew then and we know even more certainly now that this was a premeditated  terrorist attack and not a spontaneous occurrence spurred by angst over an  obscure anti-Muslim video. We know that the administration knew that, as well,  and deliberately said otherwise at least in part to protect Obama’s narrative  that he had al-Qaida and radical Islamists on the ropes prior to the November  election.

If Rice wasn’t lying, she owed it to the American people to help determine  who put her in the position of unwittingly defrauding the public about a matter  of vital importance.

But Obama, Rice and the rest of the administration have just thumbed their  noses at Congress and the American people and arrogantly refused to explain  themselves.

Now Obama is rewarding Rice for her fierce loyalty with an appointment to a  position arguably as influential as secretary of state and one for which she  will not need to be confirmed. He is also counting on her continued deference in  placing his personal interests above the nation’s.

With Obama’s brazen appointment of Rice to this position, he is saying either  that Rice didn’t lie (in which case someone else in the administration did,  including possibly himself), or that she did lie and he is perfectly fine with  it, maybe even grateful for it. Obama might as well say to us, “I don’t really  care what you think about our bogus story concerning the video. It got us  through the election. I won.”

If Obama insists on stubbornly clinging to the story that Rice did not know  she was broadcasting falsehoods, then he should tell us who did know. But he’s  Obama. That’s not going to happen.

Equally troubling is Obama’s selection of Samantha Power to replace Rice. In  announcing Power’s appointment, Obama praised her as “a relentless advocate for  American interests and values.” But is she?

In 2003, Power called for a “historical reckoning with crimes committed,  sponsored, permitted by the United States.” In a piece in The New Republic, she  advocated a “doctrine of the mea culpa,” which essentially involves the United  States owning up to its alleged past foreign-policy abuses to put itself in a  better light to the world.

Is this not exactly the attitude Obama has expressed in his ongoing apology  tour at home and abroad, always anxious to throw this nation under the bus and  distance himself from its pre-Obama history? Those who have pooh-poohed this  accurate characterization of Obama’s blame-America-first approach should take  note that Obama has now boldly reaffirmed this very worldview with his  appointment of Power.

The Power appointment also further validates Obama’s critics who have accused  him of being a poor friend of our ally Israel. Space limitations don’t permit  elaboration here, but Paul Mirengoff at the Powerline blog has described Power  as “virulently anti-Israel” and “Israel hating,” and supports his assertion in  these two posts: one and two.

Obama’s two appointments show that even as he is under heavy criticism for a  smorgasbord of scandals, he is utterly undaunted. He “won” the election, and he  is going to impose his agenda for transformational change no matter what and  militantly ignore all efforts to make him accountable.

Instead of showing endless loops of IRS employees wasting taxpayer dollars  line-dancing – breaking news: Government employees waste millions of your  dollars every single day! – I think it would be more useful for the public to  hear a few crucial facts about the exploding scandal at the Internal Revenue  Service.

At Tuesday’s congressional hearings on the IRS, witnesses provided shocking  details about the agency’s abuse of conservative groups.

The IRS demanded that all members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa swear  under penalty of perjury that they wouldn’t pray, picket or protest outside of  Planned Parenthood. They were also asked to provide details of their prayer  meetings.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. – who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to  pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of  publishing an illegally taped private conversation – blamed the conservative  groups themselves. “Each of your groups was highly political,” he lectured them,  noting that they wouldn’t have been asked any questions if they hadn’t requested  tax-exempt status.

Even a fair-minded person – not to be confused with Jim McDermott – might  hear about the IRS’ harassment of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or  “liberty” in their names and think: “How do we know the IRS wasn’t equally hard  on left-wing groups?”

What might be more helpful than clips of IRS staff line-dancing would be for  reporters, say at Fox News, to mention a few examples of the wildly partisan  left-wing groups the IRS has certified as tax-exempt.

Among the many left-wing groups with tax-exempt status are:

• ACORN (now renamed as other organizations, but all still tax-exempt),  “community organizers” who engage in profanity-laced protests at private homes,  dump garbage in front of public buildings and disrupt bankers’ dinners in order  to get more people on welfare in order to destroy the capitalist system and  incite revolution;

   

• Occupy Wall Street, which – in its first month alone – was responsible for  more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose,  suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage;
• Media Matters for America, a media “watchdog” group that has never noticed  one iota of pro-Obama bias in the media;
• Moveon.org, which ran ads comparing Bush to Hitler under its 501(c)(4) arm; 
• The Center for American Progress, an auxiliary of the Democratic National  Committee funded by George Soros and staffed by former Clinton and Obama aides  to promote the Democratic agenda;
• The Tides Foundation, which funnels money to communist and  terrorist-supporting organizations;
• The Ford Foundation, which has never found a criminal law that isn’t  “racist.”

These groups are regarded by the IRS as nonpartisan community groups, merely  educational, while dozens of patriotic, constitutional, Christian or tea party  groups are still waiting for their tax exemptions.

That’s to say nothing of Planned Parenthood, PBS and innumerable other  Democratic front-groups that not only have tax exemptions, but get direct  funding from the government.

By contrast, the conservative groups being raked over the coals by the IRS  actually were nonpartisan. The tea party forced sitting Republican senators off  the ticket in Alaska and Indiana, and toppled “establishment” Republicans in  Utah, Delaware, Nevada, Florida and Texas. Far from being a secretly  pro-Republican group, the tea party has been a nightmare for Republicans.

Show me one instance where the Center for American Progress was more of a  problem for Democrats than Republicans.

It is obviously in the interest of the left to show us liberal groups also  harassed by the IRS, so it’s striking that they haven’t been able to produce one  yet.

Instead, they hearken back to the Bush years to claim that the IRS once  audited the NAACP, which is treated as ipso facto political harassment.

First of all, the NAACP doesn’t exactly have a sterling record of rectitude  when it comes to organization funds. In the 1990s, the NAACP used tax-exempt  contributions to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of hush money to the  mistress of then-executive director Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. – as detailed in  enraged columns by Carl Rowan at the time.

Find a tea party organization that’s done that, and we’ll understand the IRS  conducting a three-year proctology exam on the group.

Second, the Bush-era audit of the NAACP was prompted by a blindingly partisan  speech given by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond at an organization meeting in  Philadelphia in July 2004. Bond attacked a slew of elected Republicans by name,  denouncing the entire party as one whose “idea of equal rights is the American  flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”

That’s what we call “black-letter law” on improper activity for a tax-exempt  organization. As a 501(c)(3) group, the NAACP is prohibited from supporting or  opposing any candidate for elective office.

The NAACP responded to the IRS’ letter by screaming from the rooftops that it  was political payback. Consequently, Bush’s IRS commissioner requested that  Treasury’s inspector general investigate the IRS’ tax-exempt unit for political  bias. The IG’s report found no politics in the NAACP audit and – to the contrary  – that more “pro-Republican” groups (18) than “pro-Democratic” groups (12) had  been audited.

Nonetheless, the NAACP simply refused to cooperate with the IRS. There was  nothing the Bush administration could do. No Republican was going to allow the  NAACP’s tax-exempt status to be revoked on its watch. Two years later, the IRS  simply issued a letter clearing the group.

Today, the NAACP openly engages in partisan activity, such as a current  weeks-long protest of Republican legislators in North Carolina.

Finally, a tip to the Democrats trying to defend the IRS: As a devoted  true-crime TV viewer, I can tell you that when you’re caught red-handed, it’s  never a good defense to say, “Why would I be so stupid to kill my wife right  after taking out a huge life insurance policy on her?”

You were that stupid, and you got caught.

It’s been a while, but surely you recall that when we heard about the Justice  Department funneling guns to Mexican drug cartels, Attorney General Eric Holder  swore he had no idea who green-lighted Operation Fast and Furious, but he was  darn certain it wasn’t him.

Hillary Clinton said she was taking responsibility for what occurred in  Benghazi.  That is to say she was responsible for everything, except for denying  Ambassador Stevens the additional security he begged for; for removing the  little bit of security he had; and for lying about the massacre having been  triggered by a YouTube video nobody ever saw.  Aside from all that, Mrs. Clinton  wanted us to know that about three cents of the buck stopped with her and 97  cents stopped with some underlings she had never even met.

In the case of Obama, after he, David Axelrod and other members of his  campaign team got done revising CIA reports about the Benghazi massacre, and  handing them off to Susan Rice so she could repeat his lies on five Sunday news  shows, Obama gallantly sprang to her defense.  When people demanded to know  where she got off trying to peddle stale baloney, Obama, pretending to be the  stand-up guy he isn’t, told the media that if they had a bone to pick with  anyone, they should pick it with him.  And as soon as they did, he turned around  and told Ambassador Rice that she could forget about becoming secretary of  state.

Jeremiah Wright could have warned her that Obama may throw a baseball like a  little girl, but he’s Olympic-class when it comes to tossing people under the  bus.

Inasmuch as it made about as much sense for the ambassador to the U.N. to  have gone on those various news shows as Lady Gaga, one can only assume that  someone decided that Rice was a better liar than Clinton, or at least more  expendable.  And, frankly, after seeing Clinton’s phony over-the-top performance  before the Senate committee, I have to agree.  You’d have thought that after all  those years spent listening to Bill tell one whopper after another, she’d be  better at it.

That brings us to the kerfuffle at the IRS.  Typically, as soon as it came  out that the tax collectors had been making life extra miserable for  conservative groups, the blame was placed on underlings in the Cincinnati  office.  Like Capt. Renault in “Casablanca,” who was shocked to learn that  gambling took place in the backroom at Rick’s, Obama claimed he had no idea that  those upstarts were creating havoc for his political opponents.  It’s even  possible he didn’t.  Between golf and fundraising and accusing Republicans of  being Satan’s spawn, he can’t know every last thing that people are doing on his  behalf. 

I’m sure that’s also holds true for mafia dons.  I’m told that they don’t  always have to give specific orders; they merely need to have it understood that  they’d appreciate having certain things done.   And in those places where  corruption reigns, whether it’s denying a tea party group tax-exempt status or  putting an icepick in the ear of a crosstown rival, they’re done.

The upside of all this is that even the members of the major media seem to be  getting tired of being played like suckers by this administration.  These people  don’t mind lying on behalf of a left-wing president.  In fact, they accept that  it’s part of their job description, not to mention their main purpose in life.   But they resent it like hell when they’re the target of a president’s lies and  the objects of his obvious contempt.

It may have taken well over four years, but even the folks from the New York  Times, the Washington Post and the major TV networks seem to have finally had  enough.   In the past, Obama could have gotten away stonewalling the press about  an event that saw four American patriots murdered by jihadists, claiming, as is  his wont, that he couldn’t possibly comment during an ongoing investigation.

But that was then and this is now.  This time, after months of lying about  what he knew and when he knew it, when the truth finally started seeping out,  thanks to State Department whistleblowers, and Obama tried to dismiss it as old  news, the members of the White House press corps were no longer nodding along  like a roomful of dashboard dollies.

And those little wet drops on Jay Carney’s brow weren’t sweat.  That was  blood.

I’m confused.

The rules of political correctness keep changing.

In the old days, the multiculturalists told us that racism was a one-way  street – that blacks and other minorities couldn’t be racist, it was strictly a  white disease.

That was because blacks and minorities were not in positions of power, and  whites had what was called “white-skin privilege.”

But all that was turned upside down recently when a Bronx teacher, Petrona  Smith, a native of the West Indies, was fired for allegedly calling a student a  Negro, though she claims it was part of a language lesson and was using the  Spanish word for black.

The 65-year-old Smith, a junior-high instructor, was let go from the  bilingual PS 211 in March 2012 after a seventh-grader reported the alleged  insult.

She’s been unemployed ever since.

“They haven’t even accounted for how absurd it is for someone who’s black to  be using a racial slur to a student,” said Shaun Reid, Smith’s attorney. “Talk  about context! There’s a lot of things wrong here.”

The teacher took a sabbatical from teaching special education in 2005 to  learn Spanish in South America, because she was passionate about learning the  language in a cultural context, Reid said.

Smith was also accused of calling her students “failures.” But in court  papers she claims that second insult was also a misinterpretation. Smith had  allegedly asked students who had failed a test to move to the back of the room,  but says she never called them failures.

According to the New York Post, she denied calling the student a “Negro” and  explained to investigators she was teaching a lesson about how to say different  colors in Spanish and said the word “negro,” which is Spanish for the color  black. She told her students that it was not a derogatory term and that the  Spanish word for a black person was “moreno.”

She added that she’d been verbally abused by her charges, including being  called a “f—ing monkey,” a “<snip>roach” and a “n—er,” but had never stooped to  their level.

A 2011 investigation substantiated the student’s undated claims based on  accounts from four seventh-grade witnesses, even though the student’s own  parents said he’d lied about the event.

But it’s even crazier than that.

What’s wrong with the word Negro?

Didn’t Martin Luther King use the term?

Do terms become racist over time?

Isn’t there an organization specifically designed to benefit American black  students called the United Negro College Fund? Will that organization be deemed  racist by the PC police now? What about the National Association for the  Advancement of Colored People? Doesn’t that group, too, use an archaic racial  term? Should Julian Bond be forced to rename his group because of new  sensitivities by multiculturalists?

Do public schools need to stop teaching Spanish because blacks might be  offended by the term negro, which simply means black?

What do decisions like this do to foster understanding between blacks who  speak English only and Hispanics who haven’t yet been thoroughly indoctrinated  in the latest politically correct forms of speech?

What’s the difference between black and negro anyway?

And I thought these new PC rules were designed to help minorities? The victim  here was a black teacher who lost her job more than a year ago over an apparent  misunderstanding by uneducated teenagers.

It sounds like a case of the inmates running the asylum. Almost like the President and his troupe running this Country.

But, then again, isn’t that what public education has become across the  country?

Sir John Dalberg-Acton famously observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and  absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No federal agency enjoys more power than  the “absolute power” wielded by the Internal Revenue Service. It’s little  wonder, then, that under this power-drunk Obama regime, the IRS has become  “corrupted absolutely.” It’s become the hammer to this president’s favorite  nail: political dissent.

The bureaucratic cat’s out of the bag, and the evidence is undeniable. The  Obama IRS has been illegally targeting conservative, Christian and Jewish groups  and individuals for political retaliation, intimidation and, ultimately,  destruction. These revelations have spurred calls for criminal prosecution and  even impeachment. Still, little has been said about how to prevent such  Stalinist abuses of power in the future. 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,  and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or  affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the  persons or things to be seized.”

No individual – and especially no federal agency – is above the law.  Regrettably, and largely through both citizen and government acquiescence, the  IRS has been brandishing arbitrary and extra-constitutional authority,  unchecked, for well over a century.

Imagine if the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the ATF suddenly  began “searching” and “seizing” the “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” of  millions of U.S. citizens every year without a warrant – without probable cause  or even reasonable suspicion that any criminal or civil violation had occurred.  People would be outraged, and for good reason. Such actions would rightly and  universally be decried as unconstitutional. The lawsuits would fly, heads would  roll and the courts would immediately shut down such “unreasonable searches and  seizures.” This is exactly the kind of government tyranny our founders  endeavored to thwart.

So why has the IRS been allowed to do just that – to violate, systemically  and systematically, the Fourth Amendment? How is it that this one federal  agency, with neither probable cause nor a warrant, is permitted to invade your  privacy and confiscate your “houses, papers and effects” on a whim? How is it  that if you fail to comply with their warrantless searches and seizures, they  have the authority to ruin you financially and even throw you in prison?

No warrant? No problem. When the IRS arbitrarily and capriciously says  “jump,” America opens its doors wide and says, “how high?” Is this the IRS or  the ISS? Either way, it’s time that “we the people” put an end to this  unconstitutional abuse of power.

At least some good has come from Mr. Obama’s IRS-gate scandal. It’s exposed  the unprecedented depths to which corruption has weaseled its way from the top  down. It’s also underscored the autocratic nature of the contemporary IRS beast.  It’s unified many Republicans, Democrats and independents around this  fundamental reality: America must de-politicize the IRS.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle love to pay lip service to a need for  “tax reform.” Well, honorable sirs and madams, put up or shut up. It’s time for  a new federal “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” A centerpiece to such legislation must  be the simple codification of that which the Fourth Amendment already mandates;  namely, that, when conducting “searches and seizures” (aka, audits), the IRS  must adhere to the same U.S. Constitution that restricts every other federal  agency.

Such a bill, notes Phillips, “would codify as federal law that no IRS audit  (or any other agency audit) of a person, organization or business could be  conducted without first having the IRS agent (or agent of the agency conducting  the audit) to prepare an affidavit that is sworn to in front of a federal judge,  federal magistrate or a tax court judge that states with specificity why there  is probable cause to believe the audit will result in either the discovery of  criminal activities or the discovery of civil wrong doing. It will be the  functional equivalent of a search warrant.”

Phillips is on to something big here. Especially when you consider this last  minor factoid: The IRS is also the OEA: the “Obamacare enforcement agency.”

If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, then nothing will.

What do you get when you cross one tyrannical, hyper-politicized bureaucratic  beast with another?

You get tyranny on steroids. You also get one happy Barack Hussein Obama.

Contact your legislators and A) respectfully request that they  re-constitutionalize the IRS; B) that the IRS be required to observe the Fourth  Amendment; and C) that they hold this president accountable for his  unprecedented and despicable abuse of executive authority.

Finally, request that Congress pass a new Taxpayer Bill of Rights that covers  “all of the above.”

We ought to get perspective on the real nature of the most recent push on gun  control, initiated out of the White House.

This is classic bait-and-switch politics, characterized by what current  Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once described as  never letting a crisis go to waste.

This has been sadly and transparently the case with this latest round of gun  control politics.

One target of convenience in this round of “never let a crisis go to waste”  is New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

Sen. Ayotte sticks in the craw of the left because real conservatives are not  supposed to get elected in New England. 

But Ayotte, the lone Republican in New Hampshire’s four-member congressional  delegation, elected in 2010 to take the seat of Republican Judd Gregg who  retired, is a conservative.

She was a tough-on-crime prosecutor in New Hampshire and is staunchly  pro-life.

As New Hampshire’s attorney general, she appealed to the Supreme Court a  federal district court decision, which found New Hampshire’s abortion parental  notification law unconstitutional, and personally argued the case.  This despite  opposition of New Hampshire’s then-Democratic Gov. John Lynch.

She is a staunch supporter of traditional marriage, traditional values and  limited government.

In a state that went for Barack Obama in 2012 and has been in the Democratic  column in five of the last six presidential elections, it is no surprise that  Democrats have drawn a target on the back of a conservative like Ayotte.

So the political barrage from the left has been pouring in attacking her for  her vote against the Manchin-Toomey bill, which provided for new, expanded  background checks on gun purchases. The bill fell six votes short of the 60  votes it needed to move forward in the Senate.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was problematic for a number of reasons, one of which  was weakness in its supposed provision against setting up a national gun  registry.

Ayotte supported an alternative measure sponsored by Iowa Republican Chuck  Grassley, and she has sponsored legislation that focuses on the mental-health  aspects of this problem.

The real issue here, and why Ayotte and those who have been in opposition to  rote expansion of current gun control law should be viewed as heroes, is  bait-and-switch.

The tragic Sandy Hook murders that provoked these new initiatives to expand  gun control would never have been stopped by anything being proposed.

No background check can stop a kid from taking a gun from his mother’s  lawfully owned gun collection, as happened in this case.

Further, as I have written before, criminals will find ways either to get  guns they want or commit their crimes some other way.  So any perceived benefit  from giving up any of our Second Amendment protections to arm and defend  ourselves is not justified by the costs incurred.

But those pushing new controls could care less about this, because this is  about “never letting a crisis go to waste.”   It’s not about carefully thinking  through whether we will wind up freer or safer.

It’s about the left using this crisis for their ongoing agenda to expand  government control over our lives.

A good chunk of the resources financing the onslaught of ads and protests  against Ayotte is coming from out of state from the pocketbook of New York Mayor  Michael Bloomberg, whose net worth, according to Forbes magazine, is $27  billion.

Bloomberg might consider tending to his own city, the nation’s abortion  capital, where 40 percent of pregnancies end in abortion – almost twice the  national rate.

Kelly Ayotte is a hero for courageously standing her ground despite the  well-financed liberal onslaught.  She can proudly claim the banner of her  state’s motto “Live free or die.”