MADDOG10's Blog

Welcome to the party, Mr. Carrey.

You’ve got every right to lampoon whomever you want, including one of  mankind’s greatest and most courageous civil rights hero-warriors of all times,  the deceased Charlton Heston.

Irreverent humor provides me enormous quality of life, and as a big fan of  Lenny Bruce, Sam Kinison and Richard Pryor (especially when he was on fire), my  outrage comedy meter is red-lined on a daily basis for all the right reasons.  But poking fun at a deceased man who lived an honorable life in order to express  your pathetic anti-gun ignorance was a cheap, soulless and cowardly shot.

The facts, however interesting, appear to be lost on you, Michael Moore,  Piers Morgan and others gagged by the curse of denial when it comes to the  self-evident truth of the Second Amendment.

The misidentified “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines you despise  and want to ban are rarely used in crimes. More people choke on Cheerios.

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were roughly 12,600 murders in America.  All rifles, including so-called assault weapons, accounted for 360 murders. Four  times as many people were stabbed to death than were killed with rifles. Clearly  you and your ilk are not being honest about wanting to save lives.

You may have noticed by living in the Los Angeles area that the thugs who are  killing each other on L.A.’s streets do not use so-called assault weapons.

Banning certain firearms may make you feel good, but it will do nothing to  reduce the violence on America’s streets or save any lives.

There’s a huge chasm between feeling good and actually doing good, and it  never includes comedic schtick.

Reducing violence is a complex problem, but advocating limiting the freedoms  of law-abiding citizens is clearly the wrong first move.

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

I’m routinely asked why I need a so-called assault weapon. That’s easy: I  want a dozen or so and don’t believe I need to justify my pursuit of a  constitutionally guaranteed freedom to anyone.

These utilitarian weapons are incredibly fun to shoot, standard competition  arms, an excellent choice for self-defense and are superb big game hunting and  varmint control instruments.

While so-called assault weapons may look like military guns, they are not  military assault rifles. This rudimentary fact has been intentionally confused  or ignored by people who want to ban these weapons.

Millions of Americans like me own the very weapons and high-capacity  magazines you despise. Our guns and high-capacity magazines will never hurt  anyone.

That’s what makes gun owners and the NRA very suspicious of gun-grabbers like  you and the president’s team. We know your focus is wrong and punishes millions  of law-abiding Americans who have done nothing wrong. There’s nothing funny  about that.

To believe that somehow banning a type of gun will make Americans safer from  psychotics hell-bent on mass murder is bizzaro logic that does not pass the  common-sense test.

The warning signs couldn’t have been any bolder regarding the psychotic punk  who killed those attending the movie in Colorado, the psycho who killed those  kids and their teachers in Connecticut, or the bug-eyed psychotic who killed the  people at Congresswoman Giffords’ event in Arizona.

We willfully chose to ignore these blatant warning signs and do nothing about  them, except to ultimately blame the NRA.

Ignoring such glaring warning signs is analogous to seeing a coiled  rattlesnake and choosing to step on it in hopes that it won’t bite. And then  when it does strike, people such as yourself blame the boots you are  wearing.

If you want to make America safer from these obvious psychotics, we need to  get them off the streets and into secured facilities.

Additionally, we need to slam shut the revolving door of our so-called  criminal justice system that daily releases recidivistic violent thugs on  America’s streets.

Just a thought, but Mr. Obama and his Department of Justice might want to  consider once again prosecuting federal gun crimes, the rate of which are  substantially down in this administration.

These measures would actually accomplish something and wouldn’t punish  law-abiding citizens or make them victims.

The facts are in: Gun control in America, just like in Canada and  elsewhere,is an abject failure as a crime-control measure. We have over 20,000  local, state and national gun control laws in America. To think that passing  another couple of laws or restrictions is going to somehow prevent another  massacre and make America safe is pure folly.

The NRA, of which I’m a proud lifer and Board of Director member, stands for  freedom and will stand in the way of anti-freedom gun-grabbers who want to feel  good but won’t accomplish anything to make America safer.

As ugly and demeaning as it was, I wholeheartedly support your First  Amendment right to spew your anti-gun views and use the deceased Mr. Heston as  your prop.

I also support the Second Amendment freedoms that millions of Americans  enjoy. I have and will continue to vigorously support this constitutionally  guaranteed freedom.

In all the talk about David Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,”  the chattering classes seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’  revelations, namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is  “received myth, not the truth.”

“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously in his  2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith in the  possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural romance shaped his  persona and his campaigns.

As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to nothing.  “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as  recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there  was no baby.”

Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible  ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very  well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,”  writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant)  by him, married him, and had a son with him.”

Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair together  during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to credible.

“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles  Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell  you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was pure lie, no other word for  it.

A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated  Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the  hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at  social events.” Another lie.

Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier that he has  proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not. Abercrombie was too  important. Without Abercrombie, there is no contemporary witness to any kind of  relationship. Maraniss, however, knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his  claim to having seen the baby with his parents.

Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life, Maraniss’ shovel  comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961 wedding. He footnotes his  comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.”

There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited  both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to legitimize her baby  with a black husband.

As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her  future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her to be married  to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to  clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.

Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss is  totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to the August  birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.

According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements, the young  family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s parents lived. Obama Sr.  clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived there without him.

Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant never  lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior Dunhams shared the  house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has no memory of the Dunhams’  daughter bringing an infant home.”

And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has known  for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the  hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland.  …”

“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is missing from  the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as recently as Father’s  Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left home when he was 2.

What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of  the 2008 election.

He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow the  whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected president.

The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama bio.  The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s mother.  The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s father,  and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in her 2012 book on the whole extended  family.

Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the fraud in  his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As D’Souza explains,  Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as the vehicle through which  the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s  first convert” to anti-colonialism.

D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer Michael  Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in his book, “What  Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the conservative blogosphere  by 2009.

What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a journalistic  scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself has played a  part.

Anthony Marshall got the news last week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Astor would have been appalled and disgusted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perez must be opposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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