MADDOG10's Blog

I don’t know how to say this more delicately.

Now that we know Barack Obama’s Justice Department, under the direction of  Eric Holder, paid for trips to Florida by race-baiting hater Al Sharpton, with  the express purpose of influencing the trial of George Zimmerman by striking  fear into the jury pool about race riots in the event of his acquittal in the  death of Trayvon Martin, there’s simply no other way to put it.

Holder and Obama are Sharpton-style race-baiting criminals.

If what has transpired thus far does not get Congress to act in a real  investigation of laws that were broken, then we don’t have a Congress with the  cojones to hold the executive branch accountable to the rule of law.

As it stands now, a man found not guilty of the wrongful death of Trayvon  Martin, a Hispanic man who, ironically, voted for Obama, will never have a  peaceful night’s sleep as hateful, vigilante-style celebrities and anti-American  lawbreakers like the New Black Panther Party threaten his life openly and  without consequences. Already, there have been widespread racial attacks on  white citizens who had no role in the case whatsoever, with no end in sight and  no condemnation by Obama and Holder.

It is as if Al Sharpton had been elected president in 2008 and 2012. Would  the official racial polarization before and after this case have been any  different?

Remember who Al Sharpton is – and what his history reveals about him. He has  best been described as a “racial arsonist.”

A little history about this “reverend” who reverences only divisiveness,  hatred and violence is in order.

Sharpton first rose to prominence in 1985 after Bernhard Goetz shot four  African-American men on a New York subway train on Dec. 22, 1984, when they  approached him and allegedly tried to rob him. Sharpton poured rhetorical  gasoline on the case by claiming Goetz acted out of racism. At his trial Goetz  was cleared of all charges except criminal possession of a weapon.

But Sharpton didn’t apologize – or even let the matter go following  adjudication. Instead he led marches protesting what he saw as the weak  prosecution of the case. He demanded a federal investigation. Once again, the  federal investigation found no evidence of racism in the act of  self-defense.

But Sharpton had found fame and fortune and a new line of work – professional  race-hustling.

On Nov. 28, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a 15-year-old African-American girl, was  found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned  and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley  claimed she had been assaulted and raped by six white men, some of them police  officers, in the town of Wappinger, N.Y.

Sharpton didn’t bother to examine the evidence. He even went so far as to  accuse Dutchess County prosecutor Steven Pagones of being one of the  perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape.

But a grand jury spent seven months examining police and medical records,  finding “overwhelming evidence” Brawley fabricated her story. Sharpton and  attorneys for Brawley were successfully sued for defamation. But another race  hustler, Johnnie Cochran of O.J. Simpson fame, paid Sharpton’s bill.

Sharpton never paid a price. His media fame only grew. He ran unsuccessfully  for president, and the media treated him like a credible candidate.

And now he is exploiting the Trayvon Martin case in the same way.

It’s despicable.

But what’s worse is the role played by Obama and Holder – who actually paid  for Sharpton to perform his racial histrionics leading up to the Zimmerman  trial.

They are all “racial arsonists.”

If more innocent blood is spilled, it will be on their consciences – if they  have any.

Kristin Tate

July 13, 2013 1:16pm PST

•                                                                                                  

BREAKING: Audio was released today, in which an official from Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) tried to convince Sanford, FL city officials to pursue legal action against George Zimmerman.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past few months, Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, a black teenager. Zimmerman says he shot the teen in self defense.

The audio was released by Judicial Watch. The DOJ official urges Sanford city officials and Dream Defenders (a minority advocacy group) to aggressively pursue legal action against Zimmerman because “if a community perceives that there’s something wrong in the black community, there’s something wrong.”

(Read more: GOP Congressman Suing The Obama Administration)

Thomas Battles, the regional director of the DOJ’s Community Relations Service, was recorded during a meeting at the Shiloh Church in April, 2012. He said, “CRS is an arm of the department that we call the Peacemakers. We work with communities where there is real or perceived racial tensions.

“When Trayvon happened, for many of us, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. We had grown up in a state and environment where race is a way of life … We’re not from Sanford, but what Sanford represented to us was the very real problems going around this state and this country. We wanted to figure out how could we stand in solidarity, and how could we make this about not just justice for Trayvon, but using this moment and using the opportunity to honor his memory, to honor his spirit by working to bring down the various structures and the various systems that allow something like this to happen.”

It is almost unimaginable that the federal government would interfere in a criminal case in this manner. At the same time, given the abysmal track record of the Obama Administration, it is not hard to believe.

The Obama Administration must be held accountable for this — but I won’t hold my breath.

Your thoughts? Let us know below

Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store  with Skittles and iced tea, when he was shot to death by a racist, profiling  wannabe cop named George Zimmerman.

In the Big Media, which has relentlessly sought out the voices of those most  incensed by the verdict in Sanford, Fla., that is how the Saga of Trayvon Martin  is being told. And from listening to TV reports of the rage across black  America, that is what is widely believed there.

But is that what happened? Well, not exactly.

Trayvon Martin was not shot while walking home.

He was shot after sucker-punching George Zimmerman, breaking his nose,  knocking him down, jumping on top of him, beating him martial arts style and  banging his head on a concrete walk, while Zimmerman screamed again and again,  “Help me, help me.”

This is what George Zimmerman said happened.

It is what the sole eyewitness to the fight, John Good, says happened. It is  what Sanford police believed.

It is what the defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is what that jury  of six women came to believe.

Why, then, do so many in the black community believe Trayvon was profiled and  murdered, when even most of the analysts on the cable news shows were saying in  the last days of the trial that the prosecution had failed completely to make  its case?

Answer: Many had convicted George Zimmerman in their hearts before the trial  began. Here, as this writer noted a year ago, are some of the voices that had  declared Zimmerman guilty of murder before a witness had been called.

“Blacks are under attack,” railed Jesse Jackson. “Killing us is big  business.” Trayvon was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante … murdered and  martyred.”

“A hate crime,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.,  said Trayvon had been “executed.”

The Grio compared his killing to the lynching of Emmett Till in Mississippi  in 1955. The New Black Panther Party put Zimmerman’s face on a “Wanted Dead or  Alive” poster, called for 5,000 black men to run him down and said Trayvon had  been “murdered in cold blood.”

Spike Lee twittered Zimmerman’s home address.

And President Obama? Did he calm the waters? Hardly. He signaled whose side  he was on. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” he said.

Not only did they all inflame the black community into believing a racist  atrocity had occurred, others still do so, even after the weeks of testimony  that raised far more than a reasonable doubt.

Moments after the verdict, Al Sharpton ranted, “This is an atrocity.” He went  on to explain the moral outrage that the ladies of the jury had just  committed.

“What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and  fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some  Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed.”

Did the ladies of the jury really establish such a “precedent”?

The four-term mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, has now brought his  healing touch to the proceedings.

The Zimmerman verdict was “awful,” he said, another example of  “institutionalized racism.” But look to Marion to find a bright side.

“The good news is that Zimmerman will never be in peace. He won’t be able to  get a job. He’ll have to go underground, travel incognito and never live in  peace. That’s the good news for me.” Now a comment like that might befit a James  Earl Ray. But George Zimmerman? Who turned this neighborhood watch fellow,  well-liked by all in his community, into some racist monster?

The night of the verdict, Mark O’Mara gave America the answer.

George “didn’t know why he was turned into a monster,” O’Mara told the  assembled journalists. “But quite honestly, you guys had a lot to do with it.  You took a story that was fed to you, and you ran with it, and you ran right  over him, and that was horrid to him.”

Like his partner, Don West, O’Mara exhibited moral courage in that  post-verdict press conference, as did that jury of six women, who rejected the  defense’s pleas to at least give them manslaughter or child abuse.

President Obama might now exhibit a little moral courage of his own, by  directing his Justice Department to halt this scavenger hunt for a “hate crime.”  If Sanford police and the FBI could not find a hate crime, and the prosecution  could not prove racial profiling or malice, what reason is there to believe any  such motive ever existed?

If Barack Obama and Eric Holder capitulate to Al Sharpton’s demand for “Plan  B” and the NAACP’s demand for a second trial of George Zimmerman for a crime of  which he has been acquitted, most Americans will come to believe this is no  search for justice, but a drive for racial retribution and revenge. And they  will be right.

End this persecution of George Zimmerman, Mr. President.

Shut it down NOW.

For George Zimmerman’s defense has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he  shot Trayvon Martin not out of malice, rage or hate – but in a desperate act of  self-defense.

Even the prosecution is now conceding Trayvon might have been on top and is  now scrambling for a compromise verdict on a lesser charge than second-degree  murder, a charge that never should have been brought. Indeed, this trial should  never have been held.

What we have witnessed in Sanford, Fla., is the prosecution of an innocent  man for murder because the politically and socially powerful demanded it.

That Trayvon is dead is a tragedy, and an avoidable tragedy. But it was not  murder. And it does not justify railroading a man who, whatever his mistakes  that night – and George Zimmerman made them – committed no crime.

The case comes down to four questions. And the answers, supported by the  evidence, testimony and common sense, point straight to an acquittal.

First, who was the aggressor?

All agree it would have been better if Zimmerman had never left his car or  followed Trayvon that night.

Yet, ask yourself:

Would a pudgy, out-of-shape 28-year-old with a gun facing a 17-year-old  athletic kid, 4 inches taller, with a longer reach, throw a punch and start a  fistfight with him?

If Zimmerman threw the first punch, what would be his motive? If you have a  gun and your adversary does not, is not the sensible stance to keep your  distance so you can be free to pull the gun? Who armed with a pistol starts a  fistfight with a suspicious stranger?

Moreover, Trayvon’s body showed no signs of having ever been punched, while  George’s nose looks like he was sucker-punched.

Second, who was on top in those final moments of the fight?

If Zimmerman was on top and Trayvon was on his back, Trayvon would have been  found on his back. He was found dead on his stomach.

If Zimmerman was on top and Trayvon was on his stomach, he would have been  shot in the back. He was shot in the chest.

How could Trayvon have been found lying on his face, with a bullet hole in  his chest, if Zimmerman was sitting on top of him? Only if George Zimmerman,  after shooting Trayvon, would have turned him over as he lay dying. No one has  even suggested that.

Why was the back of Zimmerman’s jacket soaking wet, and the back of Trayvon’s  dry, if Trayvon was on the bottom? Why were the knees of Trayvon’s pants wet, if  he was on the bottom?

Third, who was screaming for help?

His mother, brother and father say it was Trayvon. George’s mother, father  and half a dozen friends say it is George’s voice on the tape, screaming for  help.

Trayvon’s father and brother apparently told investigators initially that the  voice was not Trayvon’s, or they did not know. And the eyewitness John Good says  the guy on the bottom in the red jacket, George Zimmerman, was the one  screaming.

But, again, let us assume it was Trayvon screaming.

Why would he be screaming? If he was being beaten up martial arts style on  the ground, would Trayvon not have had cuts and bruises?

What, exactly, was George Zimmerman doing to this 17-year-old football player  that he should be screaming for help?

Where is the physical evidence that Trayvon had been hurt in any way before  he was shot? Is screaming how a tough 17-year-old male reacts in a fistfight,  even one he is losing?

Trayvon was a stranger in that neighborhood, and George was the neighborhood  watch guy. Which of the two is more likely to be yelling for help from the  neighbors?

Fourth, was the use of a firearm justified, even if Zimmerman was losing the  fight and being beaten up?

Were his injuries that serious? Was he really is danger of grave bodily harm? 

Experts disagree. But the real question is: What did Zimmerman think at the  time? And judging by those piercing screams, was not that screaming man  frightened, even terrified?

Trayvon’s parents think these were the desperate cries for help of a son  about to be killed. But if they were Zimmerman’s cries, could George not have  had those same thoughts?

George Zimmerman should have informed Trayvon he was the neighborhood watch.  Trayvon should not have pummeled him. Both made mistakes. One is dead. To send  the other to prison for what happened that night would be an act of vengeance,  not justice, an invocation of the old lex talionis – an eye for an eye.

That’s not what America is supposed to be about.

Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who is a member of the Senate Select  Intelligence Committee, is joining with Colorado Democrat Sen. Mark Udall to  “introduce legislation that would limit the federal government’s ability to  collect data on Americans without a demonstrated link to terrorism or espionage”  (“Udall, Wyden Propose Limiting the Federal Government’s Ability to Collect Vast  Amounts of Data on Americans,” wyden.senate.gov, June 14).

Furthermore, Wyden is insisting on public hearings because, as he said last  month, “the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the  intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives” (“Sen.  Wyden: Clapper didn’t give ‘straight answer’ on NSA programs,” Aaron Blake, The  Washington Post, June 11).

But why stop there? Barack Obama should be in the witness chair as well.

How  could a president with such disdain for the Constitution be re-elected? Find out  how he did it in Jerome Corsi’s brand new book “What Went Wrong: The Inside  Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next  Time”

And there is also a strong bipartisan drive to reopen the Patriot Act, which  was passed in a panic by Congress soon after 9/11. The law became a primary  source of the subsequent dismembering of the Constitution through its approval  of secret surveillance.

Udall gets to the American Revolutionary core of his and Wyden’s legislative  mission: “The NSA’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone call records is  the type of overreach I have warned about for years. …

“We need to protect our national security, but we cannot lose sight of our  constitutional liberties and the privacy rights of Americans” (“Support Builds  for Udall, Wyden Proposal to Limit the Federal Government’s Ability to Collect  Vast Amounts of Data on Americans,” wyden.senate.gov, June 18).

Also aiming at the Patriot Act is a multi-dimensional lawsuit by the ACLU and  the New York Civil Liberties Union attacking the shadowy Obama administration’s  omnivorous surveillance program as violating “the First Amendment rights of free  speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth  Amendment” (“ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone  Spying Program,” aclu.org, June 11).

Exposing the dictatorial side of Obama is Alex Abdo, a staff attorney in the  ACLU’s National Security Project: “The Constitution does not permit the  suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country.”

Unknown to most Americans, Congress’ 2011 extension of the Patriot Act for  four more years deepened its spying powers on us with the cooperation of the  mysterious FISA Court. From the American Bar Association’s Patriot Debates  website (a sourceblog for the USA Patriot debate):

“Section 215 (of the Patriot Act) revises substantially the authority under  the FISA for seizure of business records, including third-party records of  individuals’ transactions and activities. Previously, FISA Section 501 permitted  the FBI to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for an  order to seize business records of hotels, motels, car and truck rental  agencies, and storage rental facilities.

“Section 215 broadens that authority by eliminating any limitation on the  types or businesses or entities whose records may be seized.

“In addition, the section expands the scope of the items that the FBI may  obtain using this authority from ‘records’ to ‘any tangible things (including  books, records, papers, documents and other items).’”

And since this is no longer America:

“The recipient of the order may not disclose the fact that the FBI has sought  or obtained records.”

Furthermore, “There is no requirement for an evidentiary or factual showing  and the judge has little discretion in reviewing an application (from the  FBI).”

Have any of you learned about that in any school you have attended? Courses  in our schools should be given on how our American identity has been stolen from  us. Students should be taught how to make sure the tactics of President Obama  don’t carry over to the next administration, no matter its political  affiliation.

In the meantime, I shall keep reporting on how effective these and other  legislative actions are at restoring the rule of American law. I will also  continue to focus on a part of American education that has received too little  attention: students not only learning about and identifying with American  history, but also becoming actively involved in decision-making in their schools  as well as in their neighborhoods, cities, states and country.

In my book, “Living the Bill of Rights” (University of California Press), I  bring forth patriot educator John A. Howard:

“We have in the U.S. produced several generations of cultural orphans – who  have little knowledge and even less appreciation of their heritage of freedom,  or the sacrifices which produced it. We have been engaged in a kind of  unilateral disarmament, which could well prove more devastating to the cause of  liberty than would be the destruction of our defense arsenals.”

That’s how Barack Obama got re-elected.

My main job now is to focus on how we can keep future Obamas out of the Oval  Office. And that, of course, is your job, too, as committed Americans.

Are you ready to get radical to preserve American liberty?

Are you ready to think and act outside the box to return America to  constitutionally limited government?

Are you ready to join a grass-roots political movement to return America to  the lost principle of constitutionally limited government – a goal we’re losing  ground on every day in Barack Obama’s America?

If so, we must we must understand that Obama and the Democratic Party cannot  continue to grow government without the total complicity of the Republican  Party.

Obama and the Democrats don’t make any excuses for wanting unlimited  government.

Republicans do. Republicans claim to support constitutionally  limited government. In fact, few if any Republicans would ever be elected to  office if they didn’t at least pay lip service to the strict limits the  Constitution places on the federal government.

So how do we use this critical philosophical difference between the two  parties to put the Republicans to the ultimate test? If they pass this test,  Washington returns overnight to something resembling constitutionally limited  government. If they fail, America at least will know that Republicans are not  true to their word, not serious about liberty, and we can build a third party  that does or start organizing the revolution.

Fair enough?

Here’s the plan to do this starting right now with a target completion date  of the first quarter of 2015.

It’s called the No More Red Ink  campaign.

Republicans say they don’t like Obamacare. They say they don’t like  entitlement programs. They don’t like wealth redistribution schemes. They say  they don’t like out-of-control spending. They say they like constitutionally limited government.

But here’s the dirty little secret in Washington: Republicans, even with  control of only one house of Congress, have the absolute power to stop all of  these abuses and more with one negative vote. Republicans in the House  alone can do this. They have the power to return us to something resembling  constitutionally limited government – overnight! They have had  opportunities to do it in the past, and they will have more opportunities to do  it again in the very near future.

They could kill Obamacare. They could kill unnecessary and unconstitutional  Cabinet-level departments like Education. They could kill the EPA. They could  kill taxpayer subsidies for state-controlled media like PBS and NPR. They could  kill all foreign aid. They could kill taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood.  They could kill thousands of wasteful and counterproductive programs and much,  much more simply by refusing to approve any more raises in the debt limit.

They don’t need to bargain with Obama. They don’t need to make deals with  Harry Reid. They don’t need to plead with Nancy Pelosi. They simply have to say  no the next time a debt-limit hike comes before them.

In fact, House Republicans could do it without even all the  Republican votes in the House. They could do it with only 218 of the 234 votes  they control.

Could that happen? How could we force the issue? How could we let John  Boehner know that his job as speaker of the House depends on it?

That’s where the No More Red Ink  campaign comes in.

To date, this campaign has generated 1.5 million red letters to House  Republicans urging them to live up to their own rhetoric and use the political  nuclear weapon they have at their disposal. They can’t overturn Obamacare  without help from the Senate and a signature from Obama. But they can defund  it.

By freezing any more outrageous borrowing, they can force Washington to live  within its means and cut more than $1 trillion annually from federal  spending.

I figure it will take about 10 million letters to do this before the next  debt limit vote sometime this fall.

Is that possible?

Absolutely. Here are some polling facts in round numbers:

• 80 percent of Republican voters say they want to freeze borrowing.
• 70 percent of independent voters say they want to freeze borrowing.
• 60 percent of Democrats say they want to freeze  borrowing.

In other words, we’ve got the people on our side. We’ve got the wind to our  backs. We’ve got a mechanism in place to flood House Republicans with a message  that will instill panic in them. And we start with more than 10 percent of the  House Republicans already committed to voting no. We just need to convince most  of the rest that their very future in Washington depends on voting correctly on  this one issue.

Now let’s talk practical politics here for a moment.

What is the main obstacle to getting this done?

In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich did something like this as House speaker, and  Bill Clinton, with media help, turned it around on him. That’s been the fear  ever since by the Republican establishment.

Obama has gone even further. What did he do pre-emptively when faced with the  possibility his illegal and immoral spending would be dried up?

• He threatened to cut Social Security checks.
• He threatened not to pay military retirees.
• He threatened not pay soldiers and sailors on active duty.
• He threatened to gut spending on anything and everything Americans care  about.
• He even threatened not to pay interest on the massive debt he has already  incurred, leading to a default.

Notice he did not threaten to abandon Obamacare. He knows  Americans don’t want it!

Notice he did not threaten to threaten to stop paying for food stamps. He  knows Americans don’t want it!

Notice he did not threaten to gut foreign aid. He knows Americans don’t want  it!

All Republicans need to do is show Americans the transparent strategy Obama  is employing here.

The federal government could provide all of its vital and constitutional  duties and service the interest on the debt with the $1.6 trillion in revenues  it actually receives every year – with no borrowing.

It’s time for Republicans to look at the polls, explain that endless  borrowing is unsustainable and immoral. It’s time to be bold. If they don’t  listen, we know with certainty Republicans are nothing more than enablers of  monstrous, bloated, unconstitutional, unlimited government – clearly part of the  problem, not part of the solution.

Believe me, I understand that most Republicans will need to be dragged  kicking and screaming to this conclusion.

But the debt now stands at nearly $17.5 trillion.

Do you want your kids, your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren  saddled with that kind of obligation?

Do you agree that in order to get out of a hole like this you’ve first got to  stop digging?

Have you had it with business as usual in Washington?

Are you willing to get radical and stop listening to the state-run media  about what’s possible and what’s not?

The debt is a terrible thing. Most of us recognize that. But what most of us  don’t recognize is that it represents a political opportunity of enormous  potential. How many chances do we have to bring America back to  constitutionally limited government with one negative vote by one house of  Congress?

“We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian armed forces to  remove President Morsi.”

– President Barack Hussein Obama

Yes, we bet you are.!

This pronouncement by Barack Hussein Obama comes as no surprise. He  is a closet religious Muslim through and through, as his actions and deeds  over the last several years since he defrauded the American people into voting  for him for president (as he is not a natural born citizen as required by our  own Constitution) speak for themselves. Having furthered the ouster of former  secular Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 – a U.S. and Israeli ally –  paving the way for the terrorist group Muslim Brotherhood to take control of  this largest Arab state, it is no wonder Obama feels a kinship with now deposed  President Mohammed Morsi. How else can one explain this statement issued by the  White House just before Morsi and his Shariah-loving Muslim Brotherhood were  removed from office on July 3, ironically just one day before America’s own  Independence Day:

“President Obama called President Morsi … to convey his concerns about the  recent developments in Egypt. The president told President Morsi that the United  States is committed to the democratic process in Egypt and does not support any  single party or group.”

Of course Obama is committed to the democratic process in Egypt, as it was  this so-called democratic process that put the “mullah in chief’s” fellow  religious Muslims in power there. Ironically, although Obama publicly supported  Morsi’s remaining in power under the guise of “the democratic process,” shortly  after Morsi’s ouster, the Arab League, led by none other than oil-rich and  influentially powerful Saudi Arabia, hailed the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood  as a great event. So here you have it: The president of the United States seeks  to prop up Morsi and his terrorist comrades in Egypt, while the majority of  other “mainstream” Arab states, recognizing the threat of radical Islam to the  region and their own regimes’ stability, are content that Egypt has now purged  itself of this extremist Muslim scourge. If this is not proof positive of the  American president’s own intentions to further an Islamic revolution in the  Middle East and elsewhere, then fat dogs don’t pass wind, to put it most  diplomatically.

That being said, the American people and the rest of the Western world should  be rejoicing today. The people of Egypt have risen up valiantly and removed one  of the biggest cancers in the Middle East – the Muslim Brotherhood. They did so  by organizing mass demonstrations in the heart of Egypt’s capital, Cairo. The  Egyptian people had the guts to do what thus far in this country we have not  seen fit to do – demand the removal of a president who furthers his own  subversive agendas at the expense of the people, most recently siccing the  Internal Revenue Service and National Security Agency on the masses to keep them  down and silent as he proceeds to refashion the nation through intimidation and  threat, in his own Muslim, socialist image.

But President Obama is not only pushing the American people to the limit; he,  like Morsi before his downfall, also has been playing with fire among the  military. Indeed, to avoid violent revolution, it was the Egyptian military that  removed Morsi to further the will of the Egyptian people who did not want to see  their nation enslaved under Muslim Shariah law.

As many of you have been following, I represent the families of the Navy SEAL  Team 6 heroes who tragically were shot down in a Chinook helicopter by the  Taliban in retaliation shortly after Obama and his minions, to further his  re-election in 2012, released classified information about this elite special  ops force having been responsible for the assassination of master terrorist  Osama bin Laden. In the course of my representation, it has become apparent that  the U.S. military’s rules of engagement in the Afghanistan theater have been  severely corrupted by our “Muslim” president, such that our brave servicemen are  not allowed to engage in pre-assault fire and must wait to be fired upon by  Muslim insurgents before they are permitted to fire back. It is thus no wonder  that many more GIs have been lost, per capita, during the reign of Commander in  Chief Obama in four years than occurred during the entire eight-year tenure of  former President George W. Bush.

At a press conference we put on in support of these Navy SEAL Team 6 families  at the National Press Club on May 9 of this year (see www.freedomwatchusa.org for link to video), five prestigious retired admirals and generals of the U.S.  military, including the former commander of the 6th Fleet, Adm. James Lyons,  appeared to denounce the rules of “non-engagement” that put the lives of the  enemy ahead of our armed forces. They were more than critical; they were  incensed about Obama’s treasonous actions.

If this display by our most distinguished and honored American military  heroes is any indication, given the state of affairs generally in this nation,  which borders on total political, economic, moral and ethical collapse, is it  inconceivable that one day the military in this country could rise up in support  of not only the American people but themselves, and remove Obama and his radical  Muslim, socialist comrades by whatever means prove necessary to preserve the  republic?

This is not the scenario we would like to see, but like the Egyptians, when  there is no other choice, anything is possible. Our Congress has shown no  willingness to seriously confront Obama for his illegal and treasonous acts; the  constitutional process of impeachment has never succeeded at removing a lawless  and destructive president; and our judges have become the “yes-men and women” of  the political establishment.

In this context, what occurred in Egypt this week might regrettably someday  soon become a reality in our own nation. After all, on this anniversary of our  greatest day, July 4, 1776, did not our Founding Fathers take matters into their  own hands, when they threw off the slavish and evil yoke of King George III by  rising up and using all God-given lawful means under the circumstances to  further freedom?

Next week I will have the opportunity to share with thousands of libertarian  activists at FreedomFest in Las Vegas  about America’s last chance to return to something resembling constitutionally  limited government short of revolution.

It’s a simple plan. Doable. It will take the commitment of libertarians and  conservatives. And, at the very least, it will determine once and for all  whether the Republican Party will live up to its limited-government rhetoric or  continue to enable Washington’s long march to unlimited government –  otherwise known as tyranny.

The founders of America did not believe in direct taxation – for all the  right reasons. But, back in 1913, Americans were sold a bill of goods called the  income tax. At the time, proponents swore it would never be more than a 1  percent tax and would provide the means to institute all kinds of wonderful  programs. Once the camel’s nose was under the tent, it didn’t take long for  income taxes to skyrocket. Then came the socialist notion of a “progressive”  tax. Soon, Washington insiders began spending money designed to empower  themselves at the expense of the people and the constitutional limits on federal  authority.

Still, Americans didn’t like high taxes. And Republicans especially found  they couldn’t get elected by supporting tax increases. So a new mechanism for  spending was found – one with virtually no accountability to the people.

Today, about 40 percent of federal government spending is with this kind of  funny money – borrowed from banks and foreign countries. Now, thanks to this  irresponsible, immoral policy, Washington has amassed nearly $17.5 trillion in  debt with no end in sight. Periodically, Congress is asked to raise the limit on  borrowing, and it seldom disappoints. It has been raised more than 100 times  since 1960.

It’s politically tougher for Congress to raise taxes to support unlimited  government than it is to simply raise the debt limit and borrow money to spend  on unconstitutional programs.

It’s understandable why Democrats, mostly Keynesians who believe deficit  spending stimulates the economy, would follow such a path blindly. But what  about Republicans who at least give lip service to limits on government power  and frequently condemn unchecked, unaccountable borrowing and spending?

That’s where my plan comes into play.

I’ve been promoting the “No More Red  Ink” campaign since January 2011. It is designed to pressure House  Republicans (and House Republicans alone) to freeze borrowing with a simple  rejection of raising the debt limit. To date, it has been responsible for  delivering to House Republicans more than 1.5 million red letters demanding they  stop digging what is rapidly becoming a bottomless pit of debt.

With control of only one house of Congress, Republicans have held within  their hands the power to return Washington to something resembling  constitutionally limited government practically overnight – with one negative  vote.

What would be the effect?

It would instantly require a reduction in federal spending of more than $1  trillion a year.

It would spell the end of the Obamacare nightmare.

It would spell the end of the unconstitutional and wasteful Department of  Education.

It would spell the end of the job-killing Environmental Protection  Agency.

It would spell the end of taxpayer subsidies for state propaganda through NPR  and PBS.

It would spell the end of taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood.

It might even require the dismantling of the National Security Agency and its  spying on American citizens.

Worst case scenario, Republicans continue to enable Barack Obama’s spending  priorities by giving him all the funny money he needs to “fundamentally  transform America.”

I say it’s time to put Republicans to the ultimate test.

According to most polls, Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of freezing  the debt cold turkey. Some 80 percent of Republican voters support it. About 70  percent of independent voters favor it. And a remarkable 60 percent of  Democratic voters support it.

For purely mercenary reasons, if Republicans are looking for ways to expand  their political base, taking a hard line on borrowing would seem to be the  ticket.

The challenge is to launch a grass-roots movement that defies Democrats’  instincts and challenges Republicans to live up to their rhetoric.

If the outpouring is strong enough, I think Republicans, who have capitulated  reluctantly to pressure against raising taxes, will reluctantly capitulate to  these popular demands.

If not, we know where we stand. Constitutionally limited government is dead.  And the two-party system is a hopeless sham.

Then we know it’s time for revolution.