Liberals: Obama Massively FAILED To Protect America From Terrorism; So Let Him Take Away Our Guns So We Can Be MORE Defenseless

The New York Times is morally outraged.

You know, much the way child-molesters probably get morally outraged from time to time.  Which is to say, SHUT THE HELL UP.

The New York Times editorial I’m reacting to is based on two hidden underlying premises: 1) that good people should be rendered helpless; and 2) that evil people obey laws.  Both premises are cockroach crap.

A third underlying premise to all liberal appeals for more gun control is this: that, like the caliphate, every new piece of ground we take, every new piece of legislation, is one more step toward total control.  Democrats want to “control the people“; they’ve ALWAYS wanted to control the people.  Just like the terrorists and their dreams of political caliphate who want to be able to forcibly impose their will on helpless people who would be stripped of any means to resist their tyranny.  Democrats therefore want nothing less than the total confiscation of guns in America – and I’m absolutely certain that every terrorist says “praise Allah!” to that happy thought.  And when you can know that there is a group of people who are committed to taking away your rights, the ONLY “right” thing to do is to fight them over every single inch of ground.  Every single NANOMETER.

A fourth underlying premise is that the left desperately needs to get behind Obama’s incredibly cynical attempt to try to divert and distract attention away from his impeachable failure to protect America by demagoguing a highly partisan liberal policy posture.  It basically comes down to, “Obama failed to protect America when Republicans were warning about his building failure for YEARS, but let’s just conveniently put that fact aside and just give him more of what he wants.”  Because if you can’t reward liberalism and liberals for failure, how in the world can they ever expect to be rewarded given the fact that fail is all they do?

What we saw on Wednesday was a supermassive policy failure on the part of a Democrat President who has failed to protect America from terrorism at every imaginable turn.  And what the New York Times in it’s front page op-ed scream is treasonously declaring is that Barack Obama ought to be REWARDED for his supermassive failure to protect the American people by giving him the uberleftist Nazi gun-control victory that his fellow fascists have been seeking for decades.  It’s like Rahm Emmanuel said: every crisis is an opportunity.  And therefore when Obama creates a crisis by his incompetence and his moral idiocy, it ought to be an opportunity for Obama to reward his failure by seizing the freedoms of his enemies who happen to love the Constitution he routinely urinates on with the frequency of an aging man with a watermelon-sized prostate.

As I pointed out in a recent previous article, the terrorists launched a massively deadly attack in Paris France – which has some of the strictest gun controls ON EARTH.  Gun control works GREAT in theory; if nobody has guns, then nobody can commit any violence with guns, right?  It just fails in actual reality because for some reason Democrats can’t fathom, criminals and terrorists don’t bother to follow their laws.  Only ordinary people follow the laws who are then rendered helpless – which of course emboldens the criminals and terrorists.  Consider also that poor Marine who got confused and unintentionally entered Mexico with a couple of guns and spent months rotting in prison; there’s ANOTHER country with strict gun control laws.  Which means only the murderous CARTELS have guns and the people are utterly helpless before them.  Gun control works out GREAT for the people who have the guns who get to terrorize and murder helpless, defenseless people.

Then consider that Obama has REFUSED to keep our southern borders safe, and imagine where the guns will come flooding in from when only criminals and terrorists will break the law to get them.

Gun control works for fascist governments that want to “control the people.”  And it works for criminals and terrorists.  It fails and ultimately murders everybody else.

Obama has failed America so badly it is beyond UNREAL: terrorist attacks skyrocketed 150% in the five years of his failed presidency leading up to 2014 and we aint seen NOTHIN’ yet as they surged ANOTHER 81% this year from last.  Next year you will see hell unleashed because of this fool president and his fool liberal policies that the New York Slimes endorses and re-endorses.

The only announcement that ought to come from Obama is the announcement that he is RESIGNING.

This lying fool Obama boasted that Islamic State was merely “JayVee” when they were already seizing city after city in Iraq. He’s flat-out lied to us from the start about these vicious murderers.  Just a few hours before the vicious murderous terror attack in Paris, Obama lied again and assured America that Islamic State was “contained” when they were very obviously anything BUT.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff basically told the American people that their commander-in-chief LIED to them in claiming Islamic State was contained.  He refuted Obama.  But Obama doesn’t give a flying DAMN what the actual intelligence is.  He’s been ordering his handpicked bureaucrat thugs to overrule the actual intelligence analysts and just impose Obama’s political narrative in place of the actual intelligence.  And so just days before the vicious terror attack in San Bernardino, Obama was yet again falsely and deceitfully assuring the American people that he was keeping us safe.  How safe should you feel about his worthless reassurances now?

Obama sent out Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice to REPEATEDLY lie about the TERRORIST ATTACK that resulted in the murder of American heroes and the first US Ambassador since 1979 to be killed like a dog.  We now KNOW from Hillary Clinton’s emails that she tried to destroy that the Obama administration KNEW that the attack was a terrorist attack and NOT the result of some stupid video.  But the 1st Amendment right to free speech is just ANOTHER basic American freedom that Obama and Clinton tried to destroy the way they’re trying to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights.

Last night, amazingly, Democrats are actually giving Obama credit for acknowledging that the Ft. Hood shooting was a terrorist attack.  Do you know what a sick JOKE that is?  When did that attack happen?  Nov 5, 2009.  Do you know how long it took ME to officially call that attack what it clearly was?  I wrote this article November 6 the very next DAY.  Let’s see, what did I already know that day?  Let’s see: we already knew about his numerous internet postings espousing jihad.  We already knew he got into loud arguments with co-workers declaring that “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”  That’s you, by the way, if you happen to be an American.  We know that he was screaming “Allahu Akbar” throughout his murderous attack.  Again, that very SAME DAY on November 6 I wrote this article titled, “Newsflash: Obama Enlisted Future Terrorist To Label Rightwing As ‘Extremist’” because Obama had actually ENLISTED Nidal Hasan to demonize conservatives and write propaganda that it was conservatives who were the real threat, not radical Muslims.  It was within a matter of days that the authorities revealed that Hasan had business cards calling himself a “soldier of Allah” and had had numerous internet contacts with terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Obama finally officially acknowledged Nidal Hasan was a terrorist last night?

It took Obama MORE THAN SIX YEARS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE OBVIOUS.

Let me put it this way: today is December 7th.  You know NOTHING about history if you don’t know what anniversary that is, the savage Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor.  What if it had taken FDR SIX YEARS to acknowledge that we had been attacked by a foreign ideology and that we needed to go to war against that ideology.  And I’ll tell you what would have happened: the eastern half of American would be speaking Nazi and the Western half would be speaking Banzai, that’s what would have happened.

For SIX YEARS Obama buried his head in the damn sand and refused to acknowledge we had a rising enemy.  He STILL refuses to acknowledge that that enemy is motivated by ISLAMIC THEOLOGY.

We are sitting ducks because he did NOTHING.

Now, I just got through mentioning that just a matter of a few damn days before the terrorist attack that was eerily similar to Paris, Obama said nothing like that could happen here.  Because he’s a deluded FOOL.  But hey, for that matter the same hoity-toity New York Times assured us that what happened in Paris can’t happen here.  Just days before it DID happen here to prove that those know-nothing fools are a bunch of know-nothing FOOLS.

How many times do these fools get to be completely WRONG?  How many times do they get to LIE to us?

Here’s another thing to point out what a massive FAIL Obama and his Democrat roaches are when it comes to keeping Americans safe: This terrorist attack is just another in a long, LONG string of mass shootings that were committed because of the wickedness of Democrats who want to render Americans helpless with their cursed “gun free zones.” And they want to make the entire NATION one giant gun-free zone.

Now, I don’t doubt thanks to our Failed Fool in Chief that there WILL come a point when terrorists are so emboldened that they go after our police and our military by launching direct attacks on police stations and military installations.  But up to this point, how many times have terrorists decided they wanted to go after a target where heavily armed people had an opportunity to defend themselves and shoot back?  Fool Democrats merely want to increase the number of potential terrorist targets from thousands of “gun-free zones” to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

Democrats often talk about “hunting” and say you don’t need an “assault rifle” to hunt.  Of course, based on that “logic,” it won’t be long before they’ve regulated Americans to the point where the only gun they can use is a damned BLUNDERBUSS.  But here’s the thing, that’s a deceitful bait and switch and anybody who knows history knows it’s a bait and switch: the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee the “right to hunt”; it never mentions “hunting” at ALL.  Rather, the 2nd Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS” and declares that that right “shall not be infringed.”

Where the hell did Democrats decide that when the first grocery store or the first McDonald’s came to exist, that somehow the 2nd Amendment didn’t apply anymore because we no longer needed to hunt to live?

All an “assault weapon” is just a clever marketing ploy to make the semi-automatic rifles that have been legal in America since semi-automatic rifles were INVENTED.  “Assault rifles” are defined as weapons capable of selective fire, either semi- or full-automatic.  “Assault weapons” are merely semi-automatic weapons that look really cool.  They are designed to look all scary and nasty, but they’re just basic semi-automatic rifles.  In fact, if you actually know your history, you’ll know that semi-automatic rifles were actually in the hands of civilians BEFORE the first semi-automatic rifles (the M-1 Garand) were issued to US servicemen.  American civilians were using semi-automatic rifles at least going back to 1906, a full thirty years before the military got them.  So the notion that the American people shouldn’t be allowed to have these guns is just plain BULL CRAP.  It is anti-American.

Actually, assault weapons are AWESOME weapons to hunt with.  They are awesome ALL-AROUND weapons in that they are great for target shooting, for hunting AND for defense.  When I go on my hikes, I see people shooting with them ALL THE TIME.  And yet because I’m not a coward liberal I never scream and run because oh-my-god that weapon is going to take over the mind of its owner and kill me!

The 2nd Amendment exists for one reason: so the government won’t EVER have the power or ability to hunt US the way the gun-confiscating Nazis hunted down the Jews.

The 2nd Amendment was enshrined by our founding fathers as A REACTION AGAINST TYRANNY.  And the tyranny that they were MOST worried about was the tyranny of our OWN government.  And they enshrined the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that at some safeguarding level, the government would be forced to fear the people so that the people would not have to live in fear of their government.  You know, the way they had to fear their damn government in so many places that enacted the sort of “gun control” the left wants, such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

I’m going to declare it this way: unless and until the Democrat Party officially and permanently declares that the 2nd Amendment is in fact a fundamental right for the people to keep and to bear arms and ANY attempt to infringe on that right is a federal crime subject to HEAVY prison time for ANY politician, judge, or voter who tries to usurp that right, I for one am not going to listen to their mewling about gun control.

As long as there is an Obama stenching up the White House with the moral sewer of his power-grabbing executive orders, I want what my founding fathers intended me to have to protect my life and my property from his evil.

Their hypocritical money quote is this: “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

Except the right for illegal immigrants and criminals to vote without any damn ID check, of course.  The New York Times will fight to its last Nazi to stop that from ever happening.

Illegal immigrants are VOTING. YES THEY ARE!!!  Obama’s illegal – even illegal according to his own “Justice” Department just hours before he dictated what HE HIMSELF said he had absolutely no right to do – executive actions have taken away the very few protection and enforcement measures America had to keep its elections safe from foreign manipulation.  And it is now beyond easy to document as a matter-of-fact that Democrats have been AGITATING and working toward the “right” of all illegal immigrants to vote IN RABID DEFIANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

But ANY attempt to require ANY ID is met with rabid opposition and outright demonic slander.  You know, from the party that says Republicans aren’t “reasonable.”

And just for the record, if Democrats have any right whatsoever to ban the American people from owning guns because of what a FEW people do, then at least they ought to be “reasonable” enough to deport every single illegal immigrant in this nation because of what a few ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS do.  So you ban your guns and we’ll deport forty million undocumented immigrants.  And if the latter one is insane, the former one is even MORE insane because the former one is enshrined in our Constitution and our way of life.

Now let me talk more about “voting” and the UNLIMITED and IMMUNE FROM REASONABLE REGULATION “right to vote” that the Democrat Party has enshrined without ANY constitutional support.

The Nazis were ELECTED, chump.  Just like the terrorist organization Hamas was elected in the Palestinian territory.  Just like the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt.  Just like the damn Democrat Party was elected in America.

Voting is THE most dangerous right on earth.  I’ll just put it this way: a whole hell of a lot more Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps than all the Americans who exercised their 2nd Amendment rights throughout the entire history of the world’s oldest republic COMBINED.

But the same Democrats who demand our borders remain flooded with millions of illegal immigrants – and of course illegal guns coming in with them the exact same damn way they’re serving as mules for drug cartels now – won’t allow ANY “reasonable regulation” when it comes to their “unlimited” right from illegal immigrants to be “immune” from consequences of voting in US elections.

I’ll tell you what: the right to keep and bear arms isn’t merely a “right”; it’s a constitutional guarantee and it is a fundamental basis for ALL of our freedoms.  Because your freedom doesn’t mean a damn thing if somebody else wants to take your freedom away and they’ve got guns and you’ve got squat.  Versus the Democrat’s cynical and self-serving partisan demand for a “right” that is UNCONSTITIONAL and frankly ANTICONSTITUTIONAL in giving illegal immigrants the ability to override the will of the American people.

It comes down to this: as we speak, the President of the United States and his entire Democrat Party establishment are playing the most cynical and partisan political games in the entire history of the republic.  And if they win, the United States of America loses.

If you’ve got a gun, you better keep your powder dry, because Obama and his Democrat National Socialist Workers Party fascist thugs are DESPERATE to change the subject and they want your guns now more than EVER.

If Democrats don’t want to have guns, I’m all in favor of them not having them.  I am all in favor of any law that criminalizes anyone who has ever voted Democrat from owning guns.  If Democrats truly think gun control is such a wonderful idea, let them vote to take away their own damn guns and see what happens.

The worst problem with Democrats is that they invariably want to impose their fascism on everybody else.

Leland Yee Hypocrisy On Full Automatic: EVERY Democrat Is An Abject Hypocrite On Guns. THIS Is Why Founders Gave Us 2nd Amendment

Do you know why the founding fathers guaranteed the right of the people to be armed?  Because in their wisdom they they that THIS is what fascist Democrats are like.  It is THESE Democrats who are trying to take your guns away so that you cannot protect yourself from them and from their fascist policies.

My favorite quote this Democrat cockroach is this one:

The complaint says Yee described his approach to arms dealing as “agnostic.”

“People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don’t care. People need certain things,” Yee said, according to the complaint.

And, yeah.  People need certain things.  DEMOCRATS need certain things: they need to be able “to control the people” with blatantly fascist and blatantly unconstitutional policies to take over the government and disarm the American people so that they can do NOTHING to fight back against their coming Antichrist.

This story is totally amazing in its revelation as to how personally dishonest and hypocritical Democrats truly are:

State Sen. Leland Yee indicted on arms trafficking, corruption charges
By Josh Richman, Howard Mintz, Jessica Calefati and Robert Salonga Staff writers
Posted:   03/26/2014 08:23:21 AM PDT385 Comments | Updated:   a day ago

SAN FRANCISCO — In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

At their first face-to-face meeting in January, “Senator Yee explained he has known the arms dealer for a number of years and has developed a close relationship with him,” an FBI affidavit says, noting Yee told the agent the arms dealer “has things that you guys want.”

Yee, D-San Francisco, highlights a series of arrests Wednesday morning that included infamous Chinatown gangster Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, whose past includes a variety of charges including racketeering and drug crimes. Targets of the early-morning raids appeared in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday afternoon.

A 137-page criminal complaint charges 26 people — including Yee and Chow — with a panoply of crimes, including firearms trafficking, money laundering, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, and honest services fraud.

Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, as well as six counts of scheming to defraud citizens of honest services. Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking count is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.

The charges are particularly shocking given that Yee has been among the state Senate’s most outspoken advocates both of gun control and of good-government initiatives.

“It seems like nobody knew this was coming, and everyone is astounded by the allegations,” said Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco’s Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. “I’m just astonished… Political corruption is one thing, but this is a whole other level.”

San Francisco political consultant Keith Jackson, a former school-board president, allegedly was the link between Yee and Chow, who federal prosecutors say is the current “Dragonhead,” or leader, of the San Francisco-based Ghee Kung Tong organization, spelled in court documents as Chee Kung Tong.

Chow introduced an undercover agent who had infiltrated his organization to Jackson, who with his son, Brandon Jackson, and another man, Marlon Sullivan, allegedly sold the agent various guns and bulletproof vests. The Jacksons and Sullivan also allegedly conspired in a murder-for-hire scheme requested by the undercover agent, as well as other crimes including sale of stolen credit cards and purchase of cocaine.

An FBI affidavit says Keith Jackson starting last August told one of the undercover agents that Yee was “associated with a person who was an international arms dealer who was shipping large stockpiles of weapons into a foreign country.” At later meetings in August and December, Jackson said Yee had agreed to help set up an arms deal; the agent first gave Jackson $1,000 cash for his help, and later cut a $5,000 check from a bogus company to Yee’s campaign.

Finally, Yee and Keith Jackson met Jan. 22 with the undercover agents at a San Francisco coffee shop, the affidavit says.

“According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer is ‘low-key’ and has been trafficking weapons for quite a while,” the document says. “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer sourced the weapons from Russia.”

“Senator Yee said of the arms dealer, ‘He’s going to rely on me, because ultimately it’s going to be me,'” the affidavit says. “Senator Yee said, ‘I know what he could do. I have seen what he has done in the past on other products and this guy has the relationships.’ Senator Yee emphasized that the arms dealer took baby steps and was very careful.”

Yee told the agent that the arms dealer had contacts in Russia, Ukraine, Boston and Southern California, the affidavit says, and the agent asked Yee for a commitment. “Senator Yee said, ‘Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods.'”

The agent told Yee and Jackson he wanted any type of shoulder-fired weapons or missiles, the affidavit says; Yee asked whether he wanted automatic weapons, and the agent confirmed he did — about $500,000 to $2.5 million worth. Yee told the agent “he saw their relationship as tremendously beneficial,” the affidavit says, adding he wanted the agent and Jackson to make all the money because he didn’t want to go to jail. The agent replied he would pay Yee and Jackson hundreds of thousands of dollars over time, and more immediately would pay $100,000 for the first arms deal. “Senator Yee said ‘Alright, take care.’ The meeting ended.”

But by their next meeting on Feb. 25, Yee had grown spooked by the federal indictment of state Sen. Ronald Calderon; the two shared a desk on the Senate floor. “Senator Yee thought the other state Senator was a classic example of involving too many people in illegal activities,” the affidavit says. Pressured by the agent to arrange an arms deal, Yee encouraged the agent “to start off doing small deals with the arms dealer” with Yee as an intermediary.

“Senator Yee stated he was unhappy with his life and said, ‘There is a part of me that wants to be like you. You know how I’m going to be like you? Just be a free-agent out there,'” the affidavit says, adding Yee told the agent “he wanted to hide out in the Philippines.”

The agent met again with Yee on March 5, and Yee discussed a new potential arms dealer named Wilson Lim. The agent said his family in New Jersey wanted to support Yee’s bid for Secretary of State, to which Yee responded, “I can be of help to you for 10 months or I can be of help to you for eight years. I think eight years is a lot better than 10 months.”

Yee discussed specific locations in the Philippines and Florida that might be ideal for moving the guns, which he said would include M-16-type automatic rifles.

Yee, Jackson, Lim and the agent met again March 11; Yee said the arms deal wouldn’t be done until after this year’s elections. “Senator Yee explained, ‘Once things start to move, it’s going to attract attention. We just got to be extra-extra careful.'”

Finally, they all met March 14, where they discussed how they would break up the undercover agent’s money into legitimate campaign donations. The agent told Yee he was prepared to give Yee $6,800 cash and a list of weapons he wanted; Yee replied “he would take the cash and have one of his children write out a check.”

Yee ran for mayor of San Francisco in 2011 and now is a candidate for California Secretary of State. But the criminal complaint likely ruins his candidacy and further threatens Democrats’ efforts to restore their state Senate supermajority that already has been broken by two other lawmakers’ paid leaves of absence to deal with criminal charges.

Keith Jackson and Yee from 2011 until now allegedly solicited donations from undercover FBI agents in exchange for official acts and conspired to traffic firearms, the complaint says. Starting in May 2011, Jackson solicited an undercover FBI agent to give money to Yee’s mayoral campaign, including asking the agent for donations in excess of the $500 individual donation limit. The agent refused, but introduced Jackson and Yee to a purported business associate — another undercover agent — who they also solicited for at least $5,000.

Yee’s mayoral election loss left him with $70,000 in debt, the complaint says, and so Yee and Jackson allegedly agreed that Yee would call a California Department of Public Health manager in support of a contract under consideration with the second undercover agent’s purported client, and would provide an official letter of support for the client, in exchange for a $10,000 campaign donation. Yee allegedly made the call on Oct. 18, 2012, and provided the letter on or about Jan. 13, 2013; Jackson allegedly accepted the $10,000 cash donation on Nov. 19, 2012.

Yee had yet to appear before the judge as of 3 p.m., but earlier in the afternoon the judge ordered Chow be held without bail. Government attorneys called him a flight risk and danger to the community, citing his criminal history. Chow’s lawyer objected saying that Chow has been fighting with immigration authorities to stay in the United States.

Chow is not a U.S. citizen. He is being represented by public defender and lives in San Francisco with his girlfriend. He has been on electronic monitoring since he’s been out of prison and seeking legal immigration stays, even during the current investigation.

FBI agents and local police served arrest and search warrants throughout the Bay Area, with agents seen in San Francisco and San Mateo and Yee’s Capitol office in Sacramento. One of the searches was at the San Francisco Chinatown office of the Ghee Kung Tong Free Masons and is linked to Chow’s arrest.

Outside that building on Spofford Street — a Chinatown alley between Clay and Washington streets — FBI Special Agent Michael Gimbel would say only that “the FBI is executing numerous search warrants around the Bay Area.”

San Francisco firefighters carried a heavy rotary saw into the building late Wednesday morning; neighbors said they believe there’s a safe inside the building. Federal agents removed about 10 boxes of documents and several bags of material from the building at about 12:30 p.m., and the FBI left the scene soon after that.

Federal law enforcement officials have been chasing Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow for decades, branding him one of the longtime Bay Area leaders of a Hong Kong-based criminal syndicate called the Wo Hop To. Chow’s criminal rap sheet dates back to 1978, and includes federal racketeering indictments that have alleged attempted murder, murder-for-hire, gun trafficking and other crimes.

Chow was originally indicted in a federal racketeering probe that targeted the alleged leader of the Chinatown gang, Peter Chong. At one point, Chow cooperated with federal law enforcement officials against Chong, who had fled to Hong Kong after being indicted on racketeering charges but was later extradited and convicted in San Francisco federal court in a case marred by setbacks and delays. Chow’s original 1995 sentence of 24 years was cut to 11 years as a result of his cooperation, and he has been out of prison for 10 years.

During an afternoon press conference, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said “Leland Yee should leave the Senate and leave it now.”

Yee represents San Francisco and a portion of San Mateo County. Before becoming the first Chinese-American ever elected to the state Senate in 2006, Yee was an assemblyman from 2002 to 2006; a San Francisco supervisor from 1997 to 2002; and had been a member and president of the San Francisco Unified School District board. While in the Assembly, he was the first Asian-American to be named Speaker pro Tempore, essentially making him the chamber’s second-most-powerful Democrat.

That power would have been exercised this year in Yee’s run for Secretary of State against state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Van Nuys; Democrat Derek Cressman; Republican Pete Peterson; and nonpartisan Dan Schnur.

Upon pulling his candidacy papers in February, Yee issued a news release saying it was time for a Secretary of State “who will expand access to the ballot box, make our government more transparent, and strengthen California’s democracy.”

“I am committed to empowering Californians so that they can guarantee fair elections, expose special interests and prevent corruption, because it’s your California,” Yee said at the time.

Yee campaign spokesman Joaquin Ross declined to comment Wednesday morning, saying he would have to call back.

Yee is the state’s third Democratic legislator recently targeted in corruption allegations. In February, State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, surrendered to authorities after being indicted on bribery charges. In January, state Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood, was convicted of voter fraud and perjury stemming from a 2010 indictment.

Cressman, who until last June was vice president of the nonpartisan government watchdog group Common Cause, Wednesday morning said that charges against Yee must be “a wake-up call” given other Senate Democrats’ legal problems.

“We are clearly beyond the point of looking at one bad apple and instead looking at a corrupt institution in the California Senate,” Cressman said. “The constant begging for campaign cash clearly has a corrosive effect on a person’s soul and the only solution is to get big money out of our politics once and for all.”

Schnur, a longtime GOP campaign strategist who more recently served as chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission and directed the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, said news of Yee’s arrest “is yet another in a series of reminders of why Californians have so little trust in their elected officials.

“My hope is that this will prompt the Legislature to take much more aggressive and meaningful action to fix a broken political system than they have been willing to do to date,” Schnur said.

Yee emigrated to San Francisco from China at age 3; his father was a veteran who served in the Army and the merchant marine. Yee earned a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley; a master’s degree from San Francisco State University; and a doctorate in child psychology at the University of Hawaii. He and his wife, Maxine, have four children.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, served with Yee for several years in the Legislature but was never close to him. She said the senator is innocent until proven guilty but called the allegations “regrettable.”

“It’s always sad for all of us in the profession,” said Speier, “to see individuals who lose sight of what the public trust is all about.”

Check back later for updates to this story.

Staff writers Thomas Peele, Mark Gomez and Erin Ivie contributed to this report.

---

Now, I said something in your face about Democrats: I said EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is a Yee.  Why do I say that?

Here are people who live in comfy areas surrounded by armed security trying incessantly to disarm people who don’t have anyone or anything to protect them, their families and their property other than the guns that the Constitution guarantees them to keep and to bear “without being infringed.”

Obama wants to take away YOUR family’s right to protection while HIS family is constantly protected by his armed-to-the-teeth Secret Service.  And that is the same across the board for every single elected Democrat official.

Every elected Democrat is protected by armed security.  Why can’t YOU be???

Why does the State get to arm itself to the teeth while they strip you of your rights to protect yourself, your family, your home and your property???

Can you trust a Congress full of Leland Lees???

Democrats are brutally dishonest people who have now murdered more than five times more human beings than Hitler murdered in the Holocaust who keep saying, Trust us.”

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny.  It was the founding father’s way of seeing to it that the government would always fear its people so its people would never have to fear their government.  You can look around now and ask yourself if you fear the government of if the government fears you.  More than ever before in the history of this republic, the government is an instrument of naked force.  If you’re not a fool, the former is true; if you are a fool, you foolishly trust in the latter.

I’m saying it again: ultimately Democrats will win and win big.  I know that because it’s what the Bible teaches: the Antichrist is coming and the Democrats will prepare his way by disarming America from any and all ability to resist him.

Fascists Playing Fast And Loose With The Constitution Before They Abolish It Entirely: Since When Did The 2nd Amendment Just Allow People To HUNT?

Barack Obama said something really, really stupid while he was demonizing the so-called “assault weapons.”

He called them “weapons of war” and declared that the American people don’t need them and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to have them.  Even though he demands that his Secret Service have fully automatic machine pistols to protect him and his family and his top political advisers.

First of all, however, Obama is either ignorant or lying about the “assault weapons” being “weapons of war.”  Because no they aren’t: they are strictly semi-automatic civilian versions of “weapons of war.”  The assault rifle – after which the so-called “assault weapon” is modeled – is a weapon capable of selective fire from semi-automatic to full automatic fire.  Actual “weapons of war” have not been sold in the U.S. outside of a rare few gun dealers for generations.

The reason Democrats coined the term “assault weapons” to describe these legal, civilian versions of guns was because they knew they could use the similarity of terms (“assault rifle” vs. “assault weapons”) and deliberately confuse and conflate the two in the minds of the public.  Democrats thrive best at games of rhetorical slandering.  It is all they know how to do well, given the fact that they are clearly incapable of governing or leading when they slander their way to power.

Obama was factually lying when he called the weapons we can buy in gun stores “weapons of war.”  That is simply a fact.  And sadly, it is the consistent, characteristic tactic based on lies and half-truths that the left has chosen in its campaign to join Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., and the worst regimes on earth that have banned and confiscated guns.

That said, Obama’s demagogic term – “weapons of war” – was EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed us the right to keep and bear.  Unless you are so breathtakingly stupid that you actually believe there were different types of guns in the America of the founding fathers, and that they only allowed some and specifically forbade the “weapons of war.”

When the founding fathers said that the right to keep and bear arms was a sacred one, THEY SPECIFICALLY INTENDED THOSE ARMS TO BE “WEAPONS OF WAR.”  And the liberals who deny that fact are either abject liars – or they are just the stupid people who are infamously called “useful idiots” in their desire to naively and stupidly help fascists and tyrants.

And no lying, slandering demagogue can change that fact – even if he deceives the people into surrendering their weapons the way Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot deceived their people into surrendering their weapons.

This brings me to the point that many other lying, dishonest Democrats have been stating: that they aren’t out to take away hunting rifles and thus somehow are preserving the 2nd Amendment if they take away every OTHER kind of gun.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against government tyranny in the minds of the founding fathers.  They did not want America to be a repeat of the Britain they had just won their independence from.  They wanted an armed citizenry that the government would have to fear and respect.  They wanted a people who would be capable of rising up against tyrant government.  They wanted a people capable of rising up against abuses of power.

Obama and his ilk have been trying to take us back to the status of a disarmed and therefore helpless people ever since.

Patrick Henry in 1775 said, “They tell us that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

Richard Henry Lee said, “Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Does that sound like he meant that Americans ought to have the right to shoot at squirrels but not the right to defend themselves from the far more dangerous vermin threatening them???

John Adams said, “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”  Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  And if that isn’t strong enough Jefferson also said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”

And Patrick Henry again said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Thomas Paine said also in 1775, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”

Which is another way of saying that if you don’t want to be a victim of a criminal thug or an even worse criminal thug government, exercise your right to keep and bear arms.  And anybody who tries to take away our guns is trying to take away our freedom and our security.

Samuel Adams said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”  We have seen how much Democrats value human life given the fact that they have butchered more than 55 million human beings conceived in America in their abortion mills.  And we have now seen that they don’t value the right to liberty, the right to property or the right to self-defense any more than these murderers value the right to life.

And which is to therefore to say that Obama and his ilk are precisely why the founding fathers enumerated the right to keep and bear arms in the first place.  Democrats are bad people who want to take away your ability to protect yourself so they can dominate and crush you with their totalitarian government system.  Period.  And they are the worst kind of liars who deliberately distort and fabricate history to get what they want.

There have been more than a hundred million human beings who could have told you that their governments first took away their guns and then took away their lives.  But alas, their governments murdered them and their voices are forever silent until Judgment Day.  But their silent testimonies scream to every non-fascist who yearns to be free from tyranny.  And to the extent that liberals give a damn about what Hitler did to the millions of disarmed Jews he murdered, to the extent that they care about the millions of disarmed Ukranians that Stalin starved to death, to the extent they understand how many tens of millions of disarmed Chinese Chairman Mao murdered with his incompentence and malevolence in his Great Leap Forward, well, one can only conclude that they want all that to happen here, too.  Because what liberals most cherish is the ideal of the American people being cowed and defenseless against giant government.

The founding fathers framed the right to keep and bear arms as a moral issue: you have a God-given right to defend yourself, your family, your home and your place of business.  Anybody who would try to take that right from you is an immoral person.  Liberals also frame gun control as a moral issue; but on their “morality” government is God, and if your god wants to deprive you and your family of liberty and life, you are an immoral person for wanting to have any means to protect yourselves from the State.  But they dishonestly bait-and-switch that their real moral argument with a different pseudo-argument: that guns kill people and if we take away the guns people won’t kill people.

It’s a lie no matter how you slice it.  Did you know that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns”?????  Did you know that the Aurora, Colorado psycho who went to town in the movie theater chose the only movie theater among the seven that were close to him (he actually drove by movie theaters to get to his target!) that had been designated as a gun free zone???  Did you know that the states and the cities with the tightest gun control laws  lead the nation in gun crime???   Go to Obama’s and Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago and tell me what life is like there.  Why on earth do you think taking away guns from law-abiding people would do anything other than embolden the criminals and murderers to prey on the helpless victims???

The day that Obama succeeds in taking away your right to guns is the day that you declare that you, your spouse and your children do not deserve to live.  Because it will be the day that you agree with Obama that rather than being a human being with the God-given right of self-defense, you are nothing more than a farm animal – and if the government decides it is time to cull the herd, then off to the slaughter house you will meekly go.

Obama believes that only he and his family merit protection with guns.  The rest of you herd animals don’t deserve it.  The Journal News that published the names and addresses of gun owners along with a map showing how to get to their homes afterward decided that while the rest of the meat animals don’t have a right to be defended with guns, they do.  And they hired armed security like the hypocrite fascists that they as liberals are.

I made the point that liberals (a.k.a. fascists) have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution before they abolish it entirely.  Consider the recent liberal law professor from liberal Georgetown University who called on America to scrap its “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” Constitution.  Consider the Obama judge who ruled that the Constitution doesn’t give Americans the right to bear guns even though the 2nd Amendment very definitely says “keep and bear.”  The Constitution is merely an inconvenient document that needs to be thrown aside for the left to exalt in the power it seeks over the people.  Consider the incredible attitude that liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has toward the Constitution.  Consider the cynical and manipulative attitude the collectivist Supreme Court liberals have displayed toward the Constitution.  Consider the mocking attitude that Democrats repeatedly displayed toward the Constitution in their ramming ObamaCare down the now-collectivist American throat.  Consider that Democrats don’t believe that their right to power by regulating the people has ANY constitutional limits.  Consider the Democrats who went on record boycotting the U.S. Constitution.  Consider how Democrats demand that government grow larger and more powerful and that religion grow smaller and more marginal when our founding fathers demanded the exact opposite.  Consider the abject dishonesty and hypocrisy of Democrats for refusing to allow ANY ID checks for voting so illegals can vote Democrat but demand restrictions up the whazoo for those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  Consider that whereas our Declaration of Independence clearly says that all of our rights and liberties are based on GOD, Democrats actually took God out of their party’s platform last year.  Which is to state that Democrats declared that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights they want to take away from the American people or the new “rights” they want to impose on the American people.  Consider that similarly, Obama demands the government-forced redistribution of wealth whereas our founding fathers had said, “Over our dead bodies!”  And consider Obama’s dismissive attitude toward the Constitution as a flawed document by deeply flawed people.  And realize that our Constitution is headed for the dung pile of history as Democrats who have already largely killed the tree of liberty by a death of a thousand cuts are now increasingly demanding that the dead husk of that tree be chopped down once and for all.

If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would come clean on what happened in Benghazi, Libya where the first American ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the planet was murdered along with the three other Americans who died trying to keep him alive.  If Obama really wanted to deal with gun violence, he would finally explain why his government ordered thousands of the very assault weapons he most demonizes to be placed in the hands of drug cartel killers in Mexico.  The fact of the matter is that Obama doesn’t give a damn about gun violence; he just wants to finally end the ability of the American people to protect and defend themselves against his next wave of fascist abrogation of the Constitution and the American way of life.

Democrats’ goal is to make certain that you are powerless and helpless against the coming Antichrist.  Obama’s most cherished goal is, to put it in Orwellian terms, “a government boot stomping on a human face forever.”

China Condemns U.S. Gun Ownership As Human Rights Violation (Obama And Democrat Party Agree With COMMUNIST DICTATORS)

Let’s see, I’m a totalitarian communist thug dictator and I don’t want any “issues” affecting my ability to make the people abject slaves.  What is it I need to do?

Let me put on my Democrat Party thinking cap.  Hmmmm.  Oh, that’s right – TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!

May 29, 2012
China condemns U.S. gun ownership as human rights violation
David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner

A report issued by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China has included U.S. gun ownership among a list of human rights violations, Law Enforcement Examiner Jim Kouri reported yesterday. “The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011” was published last Friday on the PRC’s Consulate General in New York website.

“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report claims. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world’ s civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”

The conclusion that gun bans will result in enhanced protection of lives and personal security flies in the face of both the American and Chinese experience. Predictably, the report presents many of the same cherry-picked arguments used by “leading” U.S. and international “gun control” organizations that totally ignore the protective benefits of arms in private hands. And, as typical with advocates of a centralized monopoly of violence, Chinese-style genocide, which resulted in government-caused deaths of unknown tens of millions of defenseless human beings in the 20th Century, and the current brutal occupation and tyrannical suppression of Tibetan sovereignty, is left unacknowledged. Left unsaid is the inconvenient truth that rendering captive populations unable to resist makes such monstrous crimes against humanity not only possible, but inevitable.

Also left unquestioned: What is the motivation and agenda of any American who advocates Chicom-style citizen disarmament, knowing full-well its blood-drenched historic record?

The reason the founding fathers made gun ownership a primary part of their vision of government was because they hated tyranny and wanted to prevent government from becoming our lords and masters.

Democrats have spent the last fifty years doing precisely the opposite.

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country.  Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up.  Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades.  A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s  political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation,  primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from  Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

• When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
• It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
• It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence.  Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one.  Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.

It’s rather interesting, actually.  I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War.  It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians.  It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats.  But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense.  Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen!  Where can see sign up for that?”

Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society.  A couple of very recent examples:

Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

[…]

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

And let’s not forget Fareed Zakaria, who recently said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:

President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.

In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”

Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.

If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.

When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.

Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.

And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it.  Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery?  Liberal activist judges:

Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.

And we can go back well before that, too.  We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who warned us of the horror of judicial activism:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Democrats don’t love America.  They haven’t for a long time.  For my entire life, in fact.

America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us.  Thomas Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I think of Jefferson’s words when I hear the union mobs that shout down others and riot while mindlessly chanting, “THIS is what Democracy looks like!” (See also here).

And Democrats are at the core of this anti-American garbage.  See here.  And here.  And here. And here.  And here.  Democrats were completely at home voting for a president who believes:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country.  Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.

Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats.  You hate it.  You’ve hated it for a long time.  That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)  And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said – is in fact demonic and evil.  And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party.  Please.

Update, July 2: Someone sent me the link to this excellent piece by Ellis Washington which raises some of the same issues I raise above.  It’s worth a read.

Why I Blame Democrats For Gun Laws That Allow Crazies To Kill

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure.  After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership?  And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes.  Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens.  It only really applies to militias.  Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government.  You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections.  Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.”  And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms.  And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe.  And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment.  And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees.  As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse.  We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms.  And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here.  Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family.  Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny.  That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun.  And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats.  And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered.  Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’  And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need.  And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world.  We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history.  First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons.  And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law.  Criminals would not follow the law;  I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

Because this is America.

UnAmerican Democrats Actually Boycotted The U.S. Constitution

Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud.  Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.

You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.

Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” –

I actually meant it.

Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

And, of course, it’s not just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone.  It is contemptible citizenship.  It is the act of unAmerican people.

Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race.  They have a very different vision for this landmass known as “North America” than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.

I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:

Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power
By Michael Eden

Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power?  You decide.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

President Barack Obama:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:

Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot.  But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed.  And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.

Barack Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”

And here’s the Youtube of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.  And how does he want to do that?  By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.

Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.”  But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it.  Constitution schmonstitution.  Who really gives a damn about it?

Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks.  And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist.  And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”

Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did.  Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet.  And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned.  He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.

Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation.  The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.

And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.

It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.

I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.

Please remember that fact when you vote this November.

And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact.  And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.

The problem is that Democrats are like the leaven that Jesus talked about when describing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of His day.  A little leaven of Democrat vileness leavens the whole lump of dough.

Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done?  The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution.  And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred.  Because our futures depend on it.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now “inadequate” for them.

These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated.  It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.

Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power

Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power?  You decide.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

President Barack Obama:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:

Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot.  But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed.  And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.

Barack Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”

And here’s the Youtube of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.  And how does he want to do that?  By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.

Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.”  But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it.  Constitution schmonstitution.  Who really gives a damn about it?

Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks.  And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist.  And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”

Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did.  Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet.  And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned.  He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.

Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation.  The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.

And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.

It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.

I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.

Please remember that fact when you vote this November.

Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn

“The Universal is to be found in the State…The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth…We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State…the State is the march of God through the world…” — Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, as quoted in Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and its Enemies, 4th ed., 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963, vol. 2, p. 31.

“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'” Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144).

Hegel, it probably doesn’t surprise you, was an important precursor to Marxism, in that he held that the State owned everything, and had all the prerogatives of God Almighty.

But that was also the view of the founder of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson.  As Wilson put it, the essence of Progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.”  Jonah Goldberg noted that:

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive” (Liberal Fascism, p. 84).

We also learn of the founder of the Progressive movement that:

“Wilson would later argue when he was president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart divine will.” [And that] “He always took the side of power, believing that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side” [Liberal Fascism, p. 85]

“‘Government,’ Wilson wrote approvingly in The State, ‘does now whatever experience permits or the times demand'” (found in Liberal Fascism, p. 86, with footnote].

Jonah Golderg cites Woodrow Wilson from his unintentionally chilling essay, Leaders of Men:

“Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses.  They must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half truth whcih they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.  The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put … He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates … It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield.  Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader” (Liberal Fascism, p. 89; from Woodrow Wilson, Leaders of Men, 1952, pp. 20, 25-26].

And Wilson argued, “we must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be intent to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many.”

“God” was useful to Wilson and his fellow progressives in order to seize dictatorial powers and advance the cause of a Government as God.  But the atheist communists founded a system in which God was overthrown, and the State could assume His prerogatives unto itself.  Modern progressives have likewise banished God out of government, but they still fiercely stand for “Government as God.”  “God” may largely be gone from their arguments, but, like Woodrow Wilson and like the communists, their worship of power remains.

Right now, today, we are facing an incredibly important issue in this country which boils down to the following question: Do we own the state, or does the State own us?

Now, someone might argue, “No one’s debating that.  Liberals aren’t arguing that ‘the State owns citizens.'”

And I would argue, “Really?”  And then I’d hand off the ball to Brit Hume.

From Fox News Special Report, Tuesday, September 13, 2010:

BAIER: Senior political analyst Brit Hume is here with some thoughts about what the debate over the soon to expire tax cuts really means.

Good evening, Brit.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Bret.

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

BAIER: Brit, “The Washington Post” is reporting that top Democratic leaders want to rebrand the extension of the Bush tax cuts to call them the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. What about that?

HUME: Well, if we had sat here a year and a half ago and one of us had said to the other that Democrats at this stage would be wanting to rebrand the Bush tax cuts and continue them and call them the Obama tax cuts, we’d have both fallen out of our chairs laughing. These are people who opposed these tax cuts when they were passed. They now not only want to extend them or at least the largest piece of them, but they want to put Barack Obama’s name on it. Bret, it doesn’t get any better than this.

BAIER: All right. Brit, thank you.

I recently wrote an article that refutes the Democrat contention that tax cuts have to be “paid for” or “cost” the government.  And Brit Hume points out – as I do – that the Democrats screaming about the $700 billion that the rich’s tax cut would cost the Treasury, while simultaneously calling for a tax cut for the middle class (which they vigorously opposed during George W. Bush’s presidency) that would cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION according to the same report.  But in the above special commentary, Brit Hume destroys the very premise by which the Democrats argue that the tax cuts should be treated as a “cost” to the government at all.  On what ethical basis should allowing people to keep more of the money that they earned be deemed a “cost” to the government?

Think of it this way.  Suppose I believe that my next door neighbor’s property belongs to me, and allowing my neighbor to keep what I think is really mine is a cost to me.  Our prison system is filled with people who think precisely that way.  But is it true?  Well, only if the entitlement mindset of coveting what others have accumulated is the way the world should work.  In that case, what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.  Otherwise, if my neighbor’s property actually belongs to my neighbor, then no matter how much he works or how much he profits, it doesn’t cost me anything.  And it would frankly be immoral of me to think otherwise.

Here’s another way to think of it, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

But while it IS the oath, it is no longer the system.  Rather, we have a system that has been perverted by judicial activism and by the politics of class envy and class warfare.

Then there’s the fact that even the wealthiest billionaire becomes “the little guy” when confronted by the power of government.

Watching the September 16th Larry Kudlow program on CNBC, I learned that China has ten times the growth of the United States, and that China has lower taxes than we have.  Meanwhile, Democrats are using Marxist class warfare and redistributionist arguments to try to raise American taxes even higher.  With all due respect, what should you call a party that is even more communist now than communist China?

So let me ask again: Does the government own all of my wealth, and allow me to keep some of it?  Do I belong to my government, or does my government belong to me?

In Washington under the Democrats’ philosophy, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a “cost.” It’s “lost revenue” for the government.  As if all the money we earn really belongs to the government in the first place and that what government allows us to keep amounts to a government expenditure.  In this mindset, we are wading neck deep into the waters of Marxist collectivism, and the view of Government (big ‘G’) as being our God and as Savior.

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one.  The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting? God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.”  — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.  Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God.   Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him.  Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes.  A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

From doubling our taxes to quintupling them; a good definition of “progressivism” is a political movement that is devoted to making things ever worse than they were before.

Our founding fathers went to war in their reaction against tyrannies which are nothing as compared to the tyrannies modern Americans now face every day.

Tyranny is the kind of thing that creeps up on a people.  It’s not like we have a “Tyrant Party” that promises more tyranny, and then we vote for them.  Rather, tyranny is “progressive.”  The wrong people, or people with the wrong worldview, gain power, and then they just seize more and more and more of our freedoms.  Until we wake up and wonder what happened.

47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all today, while demanding that a smaller and smaller group of people pay an increasing share of taxes.

But mark my words: the same government that believes that it owns the wealth of the wealthiest will all too-soon understand that it owns your wealth, too.  And that it has the right to take from you whatever it demands.

Update, September 27, 2010: here we go again…

2nd Amendment: How the Founding Fathers Provided Against Tyranny

My brother sent this to me.  It might have ran around the internet universe seven times via email.  But it was new to me, and I found it genuinely insightful.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell” (Aug. 14, 1787. ME 6:274)

Twelve years after Jefferson wrote these words, Napolean Bonaparte installed himself into power in a coup and began a totalitarian dictatorship.  For the next sixteen years, he stirred constant war across Europe.

Sixty-one years after Jefferson wrote these words Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, which stated, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

One hundred and twenty-seven years after Jefferson wrote these words the hatred and ugliness that had long festered in Europe erupted into the most vicious and murderous world war the world had ever known up to that time.

One hundred and thirty years after Jefferson wrote these words the revolution of class struggle described by Marx violently took over Russia and began to grow into the greatest oppressor of the human spirit the world has ever known.  Over one hundred million human beings would die under the system of communism.

One hundred and thirty-five years after Jefferson wrote these words the dictator Benito Mussolini brought fascism into the world in Italy.  And one hundred and forty-six years after Jefferson wrote these words Adolf Hitler degenerated fascism into its ultimate depths of evil that led to the Holocaust and the most costly and horrible war ever waged.

While European despots and totalitarian regimes seized weapons from the hands of the people and dominated their people with tyranny, America – like heaven in comparison – continued to grow as a free nation.  Ultimately, it came to grips with the conflict that the founding fathers deliberately created, and faced its own tyranny in a costly Civil War that resulted in the freeing of the slaves.

While white Americans continued to be free to keep tyranny at bay by bearing arms, the laws prior to the Civil War kept blacks under the thrall of abject tyranny:

“No slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons,” declared an 1854 law of North Carolina.

There were four million black slaves in 1861.  How long would they have remained slaves had they possessed arms?

And thus without further ado we present the:

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”  ~Thomas Jefferson

2.  Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

3.  Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5.  Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7.  You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8.  Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9.  You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11.  64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12.  The   United States  Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13.  The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14.  What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15.  Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16.  When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17.  The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS ‘REFRESHER’ ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

I think back to the country our founding fathers had emerged from.  In Britain, it was illegal for a peasant to be armed.  Revolt against the king – no matter how villainous or tyrannical he was – was absolutely impossible.

The founding fathers had an idea for a greater system of government; one which forced the government to respect the people.

I think back more recently to the many countries that America has liberated from tyrants – Iraq and Afghanistan included.  The peoples we liberated were helpless to liberate themselves; they needed the strong and mighty hand of a free people who loved and valued freedom to do their liberating for them.

And America – with its passion for freedom and its hatred of tyranny espoused in the theme of sic semper tyrannis – has a proud and noble history of liberating peoples from the most evil dictators and tyrants the world has ever seen.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against tyranny in the aftermath of their conflict with a nation that offered its people no recourse against the tyranny of their government.

As we stare a government that is growing larger and ever larger, and more and ever more invasive, we keep our rights as a free people only by embracing the fundamental right to defend ourselves against tyranny from the wisest and noblest political leaders who ever lived.