What Kind of "Man of God" is This?

I said several weeks ago that I thought carrying firearms to political events was needlessly provocative and counterproductive; now I find out that the man who carried the Bushmaster Carbon-15 rifle wants President Obama to die, and belongs to a fringe storefront church where the pastor proudly reiterates the same message. Lovely.

Charles has the video, which is utterly indefensible.

I think Barack Obama is an arrogant, incompetent ideologue. I disagree with almost every political position he holds and many moral positions as well. I think his Presidency will do far more harm to this country and to this world than good.

That said, we should be hoping that he ends up making the right decisions despite his incompetence and foolishness, or that at a minimum, that the makes mistakes that we can learn from and rectify.

Wishing death upon him—especially something as agonizing as cancer—is not the wish of a true follower of Christ's teaching, and to hear a so-called pastor praying for that makes me wonder if it is Christ he actually serves.

Standing Your Ground

Apparently my most recent article for Pajamas Media didn't sit right for some people. The article, A Man's Wal-mart is His Castle? was written about a shooting that took place in a Billings, MT store after a argument escalated into gunplay.

More than one reader in the comments thought that my article was misleading and inflammatory, and they are welcome to their options. I'm sorry if you felt that way, because I didn't consciously mean to be provocative.

The reason the article come about is because Montana recently passed House Bill 228, which was the state's version of the "castle doctrine," also known as a "stand your ground" law. Many states have a variant of the law, but what makes Montana's law interesting is that the language of the bill has what appears to be a very low threshold to the use of lethal force.

Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

What constitutes a threat of bodily injury in the eyes of Montana's courts? That is a very broad term, and much lesser threshold than is common elsewhere.

Any number of found objects and makeshift weapons can be used to threaten bodily injury. Does this mean that a man cheating on his wife can then shoot her if she throws a plate at him when she finds out? Apparently so. Even a thrown punch or slap may be enough provocation to justify deadly force under this law, which seems to be the allegation in the Schmidt/Lira incident.

Quite a few people in the comments of that post seem to think that a thrown punch is enough to justify a bullet in return. The way I was trained, I find that excessive, and both illegal and ethically immoral in most instances.

I took my concealed carry course while other were preparing to watch the Steelers play the Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII, and we were taught as many military and law enforcement officers are taught about the escalation of force or use of force continuum as it applies to us as concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina:

There are four rigid criteria that must be satisfied to justify shooting another person in self defense in North Carolina, but I imagine the law here isn't too much different in the 30 or so other states where concealed carry is allowed.

In plain English, we can't start a confrontation, must try to diffuse or escape the situation if we can, and can only pull a weapon when some tries to kill or sexually assault someone else or ourselves, and once we fire, we can only shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. That last detail was printed on the bottom of every page of the course syllabus, in bold text: Do not shoot to kill. Shoot to stop the lethal threat.

In practicality, there are three rules to follow in deciding whether or not deadly force is justified. explained as A.O.J.

Ability: the attacker or attackers must have the ability to kill or cripple.
Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power.
Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple.

You’ve got to decide if a threat meets all three criteria, and oh, and by the way… in "real world" scenarios, the CCH holder usually has just seconds to make that determination. Legal self defense is not for the stupid. At this point of the class, I was beginning to think that think it would be far more practical to apply for a "concealed lawyer" permit, if I could only find one small enough to shove in a holster.

Craig Schmidt shot Danny Lira in the face after Lira punched Schmidt, and Schmidt fell to the ground. That was enough justification for some, it seems. They make anecdotal arguments citing the relatively few number of people who have been killed with a punch, and also cite Lira's 260-pound weight (and roughly 100 pound weight difference) as justification for the much lighter Schmidt to shoot him.

If Lira was 260+ pounds of ripped muscle like UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar or some sort of other imposing figure I may buy that argument, but Schmidt was three inches taller than the 5"9" 260-pound doughball that he shot. Lira is certainly heavy, but heavy does not automatically mean that person have an advantage.

Going back to the guidelines I have learned to operate under, this is how I might judge the defensibility of the Schmidt/Lira shooting.

Ability: the attacker or attackers must have the ability to kill or cripple.
Unknown, but doubtful.

Opportunity: the attacker must immediately be capable of employing that power.
Lira obviously had the ability to throw a punch, but it is dubious to claim he has the power or ability to kill or cripple.

Jeopardy: the attacker is acting in such a manner that a prudent person would conclude that the act was mean to kill or cripple.
Absolutely not. In no iterations of the story told by either man did Lira press his attack, and if Lira's version of events is closer to the truth than Schmidt's, the Lira was the one attacked when Schmidt hit him first, meaning his punch was a defensive reaction.

Additionally, if Lira's claim that Schmidt slammed into him with his shoulder can be verified, that would indicate that Schmidt was acting as a agent provocateur, attempting to escalate an argument in an attempt to justify an attempt at murder.

Admittedly, this is all speculation at this point, and many of the key details of this case as yet unknown to the public.

Perhaps Schmidt will be found justified.

Perhaps Lira will be proven the victim.

Either way, HB 228 remains a seriously flawed attempt at providing the citizens of Montana a variation of the castle doctrine, and one that needs to quickly be revised.

NC Supreme Court Issues Emergency Room Stimulus

Because what this world needs is more armed ex-cons:

The North Carolina Supreme Court says a 2004 law that bars convicted felons from having a gun, even within their own home or business, is unconstitutional.

The state's high court ruled Friday in the case of Barney Britt of Wake County that the General Assembly went too far five years ago when it toughened restrictions on felons owning guns as part of a broad anti-domestic-violence bill.

Update: Okay, I'm a dolt.

For whatever reason, I had it in my head that the Court was allowing violent ex-cons to own firearms, and I was not thinking about non-violent offenders. Sadly, the article doesn't do a good job in defining precisely what the court said.

If it turns out that the ruling affects non-violent offenders, I'll agree with those that state they have paid their debt to society. If it applies to violent offenders as well, I still have a problem with it.

Monster Kennedy Found Jokes About Kopechne's Drowning "One of His Favorite Topics of Humor"

Sick, Bloated, Evil.

The Real Roots of Astroturf

You'll never guess where it really resides.

Well, maybe you will. There is a reason professional protesters seem to be uniformly liberal.

A Man’s Wal-Mart Is His Castle?

An employee fight at Wal-Mart that ended in a gunshot to the head challenges Montana's new law regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense.

At Pajamas Media.

Too Soon?

From a buddy on my high school football team, via Facebook:

So the Dems want to change the current bill to the Ted Kennedy Memorial Bill.

Does that mean they are going to do what he did with Mary Jo Kopechne?...Do nothing and watch it die??

What They Won't Mention About Ted Kennedy: Treason

I don't like to use the word "treason." It is tossed around so casually these days by overly-inflamed people on both sides, and as a result, its use as an epithet has lost much of its sting.

I regret this today because it make sit that much harder to communicate the great disservice Edward Kennedy do to this nation years ago, as he conspired with our country's greatest enemy in an attempt to undermine a sitting President.

A third Kennedy boy who made it to the U.S. Senate and had his eyes on the presidency was Ted, who was politically to the left of his brothers, especially with regard to the Cold War and the Soviet threat.

Once Reagan was President, he found himself at odds with the latest Sen. Kennedy. Reagan ideas such as deploying intermediate-range nuclear forces (INFs) in Western Europe and the Strategic Defense Initiative infuriated Ted Kennedy, who, according to a highly sensitive KGB document discovered by reporter Tim Sebastian of the London Times (which ran an article on the document Feb. 2, 1992), was motivated to do something quite unusual:

On May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov sent a message of "Special Importance" with the highest classification to General Secretary Yuri Andropov. The subject head to the letter read: "Regarding Senator Kennedy's request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov." According to Chebrikov, Sen. Kennedy was "very troubled" by the state of U.S.-Soviet relations. Kennedy believed that the main reason for the dangerous situation was "Reagan's belligerence" and particularly his INF plan. "According to Kennedy," reported Chebrikov, "the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification to his politics."

The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov's memo held out hope that Reagan's 1984 re-election bid could be thwarted. But where was the President vulnerable? Chebrikov stated that Kennedy had provided a possible answer. "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," wrote Chebrikov. "These issues, according to the senator [Kennedy], will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign." According to Chebrikov, Kennedy lamented that Reagan was good at "propaganda," whereas statements from Soviet officials were quoted "out of context" or "whimsically discounted."

Soviet PR Campaign

Chebrikov then relayed Kennedy's alleged offer to Andropov: "Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan." The first step, according to the document, was a recommendation by Kennedy that Andropov invite him to Moscow for a personal meeting. Chebrikov reported: "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

Second, wrote the KGB head, "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA." He said the Massachusetts senator had suggested a "direct appeal" by Andropov to the American people. "Kennedy and his friends," wrote Chebrikov, would hook up Andropov with television reporters such as Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters. Chebrikov said that Kennedy had suggested arranging interviews not merely for Andropov but also for "lower-level Soviet officials, particularly from the military," who "would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the U.S.S.R."

In essence, Chebrikov reported that Kennedy offered to help organize a Soviet PR campaign, which would "root out the threat of nuclear war" and "improve Soviet-American relations" (and also hurt Reagan's 1984 re-election prospects). "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders," explained Chebrikov.

The tale is not new, but people will try to forget or gloss over Kennedy's faults and crimes as character flaws or some other trivial, forgettable, and forgivable offense. But Ted Kennedy is not a great man with easily dismissed faults. He did this country a great wrong, conspiring with an enemy against our President.

Sadly the media and politicians will try to lionize him in his passing, never being honest enough to admit that despite some of the good things he accomplished while in office, he was in word and deed often no better than a jackal.

8/27 Update: Forbes decides to cover the same ground.

Obese Womanizing Drunk Who Killed Young Woman in Alcohol-Related Accident Decades Ago And Who Spent His Career Increasing the Federal Deficit, Finally Dies

Ted Kennedy is dead. I will not miss him.

Ted Kennedy wanted more and bigger government, because he did not believe in nor understand the true genius of America.

Ted Kennedy wanted to force Americans to have gun control, even as he used his family's illegally-acquired fortune to hire armed bodyguards.

Ted Kennedy wanted to force us into socialized healthcare, even though he would have died long ago under the kind of healthcare rationing he wanted to force on the rest of us.

Ted Kennedy wanted to force us to use expensive alternative energy sources, even as he shot down plans for a wind farm that would have spoiled his beachfront views.

Ted Kennedy is dead, at long last.

He will not be missed here.

Update: And I almost forgot... he was a treasonous son-of-a-bitch as well, conspiring with the Soviet KGB during the Cold War in an attempt to undermine President Reagan for his own political gain.

That merits it own post.

Some People Call Him Maurice... His Defense Attorney, For Instance

With a O.G. moniker like Maurice Schwenkler, you knew he was destined for trouble:

Police say they've arrested one suspect, but a second remains at large, after two men smashed 11 large, plate-glass windows with hammers at the Colorado Democratic Party Headquarters early Tuesday morning.

Denver Police say an officer was driving by the building, located at 777 Santa Fe Drive, around 2:20 a.m. and spotted two men with hammers smashing the windows.

The officer made his presence known, but police say that's when the two men hopped on their bicycles and tried to get away.

The officer followed the men until one veered off and the officer could only follow one of the suspects.

That man, 24-year-old Maurice Schwenkler, who was wearing a blue hooded sweatshirt, a shirt over his face, jeans and latex gloves, was taken into custody a few blocks away. Police are still looking for the other man.

Damage to the building is estimated at $10,000. Police say they're trying to figure out what motivated the men to commit the crime.

Officials with the Democratic Party, however, think the vandals had a specific target: the posters stating the party's position on health care reform and images of President Obama.

Before he got all smashy-smashy on Democrat HQ, Maurice worked for a progressive political activist group, Colorado Citizens' Coalition. From that, we can probably infer he is one of the leftist fanatics disenchanted with the probability that government-run healthcare isn't likely to become law anytime soon.

On the bright side, at least he'll have publicly-funded healthcare in jail.

A Gun-toting Protester MSNBC Doesn't Mind

While I still think carrying firearms to political protests is counterproductive, it is interesting to note the media furor over the open display of firearms in recent events has not been matched by the most recent sighting of an armed protester in Mesa, Arizona on Saturday.

See if you can figure out why:

Except for one counterprotester, apparently the only one within shouting distance. The man would only give his first name as he stood alone, wearing a Yankee baseball team shirt, a handgun on his hip, holding a contrary sign.

Josh, who explained he would only give his first name because of the type of work he does, said he was a Democrat among a sea of non-Democrats, touting health care reform, but not reforms over his right to bear arms.

"Part of my passion as a Democrat is the right to bear arms," Josh said.

A veteran, and from a long family history of veterans, the man who was very much alone in the small crowd of protesters said he believed in fighting for the less fortunate.

"I am a firm supporter of health care for every American," he said.

Compared to last week's attempt by MSNBC to brand open carry advocates as violent racists—going so far as to doctor video to agree with their thesis—their treatment of this armed healthcare protester is laudatory.

The conclusion to be drawn from this seems obvious: The media doesn't mind if you carry firearms, as long as you carry their water as well.

(h/t CY reader cousin-merle)

Democratic Strategist Involved in Bombing

Going with the Bill Ayers model of community activism, I guess.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

I'll be very interested to see how today's revelations about various left-wing bomb plots will raise a cry in the media about the dangers of left wing terrorism... you know, the kind the Southern Poverty Law Center can't be bothered to Google up a fake report about for the Justice Department to disseminate as propaganda.

Must be One of Those Right Wing Terrorists

Ready it quickly, before Katyanne Marie Kibby's threat to murder a bomb plot informant goes down the memory hole:

A Texas woman faces trial this month in Austin on charges she threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated an Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., last fall.

Katyanne Marie Kibby, 25, was indicted in June by a federal grand jury in Austin. She is accused of retaliating against Brandon Darby, the community activist-turned-informant who helped federal prosecutors win convictions against Bradley Neal Crowder, 24, and David Guy McKay, 23.

Prosecutors say the e-mail threat was made Jan. 10. That was two days after Crowder reached a plea bargain with federal prosecutors in Minneapolis for his role in the plot to build Molotov cocktails and attack the GOP convention in September 2008.

Crowder and McKay were part of a group of activists that had gone to the Twin Cities to take part in street demonstrations. The FBI had infiltrated the group with Darby. Crowder and McKay built eight of the gasoline firebombs but didn't use them, a fact law enforcement officials credited to Darby.

Members of the Austin protest community heaped scorn on Darby, saying he had betrayed longtime friends and colleagues.

Note that the Statesman mentions the target of the bomb plot was Republican, but declines to state to which political affiliation the bomb-building activists subscribe.

As Glenn Reynolds notes, it's all about protecting the narrative.

At War with the CIA

The CIA sent out a press release today disavowing any knowledge of the President's upcoming fishing accident.

Hey, it could happen.

MoveOn.Org, SEIU, ACORN To Infiltrate/Disrupt Recess Protests

As you may know, there are currently recess protests in all 435 Congressional districts, for the majority of American citizens that oppose the government-run health insurance.

MoveOn-Org, SEIU union thugs, and ACORN members are moving to infiltrate and disrupt these events.

Here is a copy of an MoveOn.org email promising a "hearty welcome" to the majority of who don't want Obamacare rammed down their throats.

Counter-protesting is perfectly acceptable and encouraged, as it should be.

But I have a contact who claims to have seen unofficial communications from ACORN, SEIU, and MoveOn.Org members not to just protest for the government option, but it infiltrate the anti-government protesters and attempt to stir up trouble. Precisely what kind of trouble was not specified, and was no doubt communicated verbally.

Keep your eyes open folks, and don't allow yourselves to be provoked. Also, keep an eye on the more excitable and antagonistic folks protesting Obamacare.

If they're acting provocatively in front of news crews or private video cameras, they may not be on your side at all.

Pressure Mounts Against MSNBC's Faked Racial Conspiracy

By now you've all heard about how MSNBC doctored video in order to push the fabricated narrative that open carry advocates at health care events were racially motived. MSNBC had tightly cropped an African-American open carry advocate with a Carbon-15 rifle slung over his shoulder so that you could not see his race, in order to argue that "white people showing up with guns" brought racial overtones to these protests.

Americans for Limited Government called for those involved in "a blatantly racist broadcast" to be fired on Tuesday, at which point MSNBC offered a pathetically weak non-apology attempting to claim that they were talking open carry advocates generally, even though the shot was focused on the carefully cropped image of an African American man the majority of the time.

Brent Bozell of the Media Resource Center added his thoughts today, stating that MSNBC must apologize for fomenting racial discord:

"This goes beyond 'sloppy' reporting by MSNBC. This was a deliberate effort to brand conservatives as racists – and now as violent racists.

"Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, this so-called 'news' network has tried desperately to convince viewers that opposition to Barack Obama must be race-based. Now they are actually producing deliberately misleading stories to push that agenda. As a 'news' network, MSNBC is a disgrace.

"MSNBC owes this man and the tens of thousands of protestors a public apology. It should also extend that apology to its tens of thousands of viewers."

MSNBC is guilty of attempting to incite racial strife. They obviously hoped find some sort of political silver lining in labeling opponents as white racists, even when those that oppose them are black.

I do think Bozell must have misstated MSNBC's appeal, however.

Do they really have tens of thousands of viewers?

A Cult on the Verge of Failure

Cults of personality are dangerous things. Those inside them develop strong bonds and a shared belief system that so distorts their world view that they create their own reality... or at least their own reality-based community.

Despite all the celebrity and cultism that has attached itself to the self-indulgent mythology of Barack Obama, and the bullet-proof Democratic majorities he has in the House and Senate, the President has utterly failed to unite the country behind his vision of government-run health insurance. The reason for this failure is quite simple: the majority of Americans have seen the kind of rushed incompetence that has marred every effort of the current Congress and President, and they do not want any part of more of it, thank you very much.

And so perhaps a smarter President and his supporters would be patient and try to implement an incremental approach toward achieving their. They could, with some little compromise just within the Democratic Party, get some of what they want. It would not take much; all they need is the support of their own. They do not need one Republican vote in the House or Senate. All they need to do is make the health care bill palatable to the moderates and conservative Blue Dogs within their own party.

But the frenzied cult of Obama on the far political left are dogmatic, and will not compromise.

While they claim the mantle of "liberal" and "progressive," their views and desires are fixed, inflexible, and (dare I say it?) conservative beyond all rationality. They are so rigidly locked into their belief system that they are willing to lose the possibility of even incremental changes if they cannot bully government-run insurance onto all of us. The fact of the matter is that they are anything but the free-thinkers they like to think they are, and cannot accept any deviation from their chosen path.

And so in the days and weeks ahead as town hall protesters continue to let their elected representatives know that they will not tolerate the radical shift that the far left wants, the left faces getting nothing instead of something.

The cult seems strong and powerful to those inside it.

Too bad the majority of us just think they're delusional nuts.

Blackwater USA: Your Preferred PowerPoint Presentation Vendor Solution

Mark Manzetti claims in the New York Times that the Central Intelligence Agency hired Blackwater USA in 2004 to locate and kill top al Qaeda members. He backs this up by claiming that various alleged anonymous sources told him so.

But as an embarrassed CIA Director Leon Panetta was forced to admit, the program was little more than a PowerPoint presentation and a collection of ideas within the CIA. It never got off the ground, and was never operational.

What, then, did Blackwater actually do?

Manzetti's article certainly has an accusatory tone, but it doesn't seem to provide any evidence that they did anything at all, other than to give the reactionary left a reason to collectively freak out once more at the mention of Blackwater's name.

Is the Media Rooting for an Obama Tragedy?

I first asked that question back on January 11, 2008, and at that time dark fantasies of a Barack Obama martyrdom had already been hopefully forecast in the left-leaning media for a year. It's been two-and-a-half years, and they're still trying to hype his pending demise, if not engineer it.

Now we have MSNBC caught red-handed doctoring video in order to push an inflammatory racist narrative. It is fraud perpetrated by a news organization for propaganda purposes, pure and simple.

Contessa Brewer, her editors, and producers at MSNBC should all be fired for this purposeful deception of their viewership, and the cable network itself should hold a open and transparent investigation into how the biases they've encouraged in their newsroom have led to such lies. It will never happen, of course.

They lack the integrity to even feign ethics anymore.

Dishonest MSNBC Edits Out Face of Protestor in Order to Push Narrative of Racism

Via Hot Air, it has to be seen to be believed.

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.

The reason we're talking about this—a lot of talk here Dylan—because people feel like yes, there are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. You have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

White people?

This is Chris, the racist white person that had the Carbon-15 carbine on a sling over his shoulder and a gun on his hip that Brewer was talking around in order to keep her talking point intact. Note that in the beginning of this video, MSNBC went to great pains to edit out Chris's head (and race) so that they could provide a race-baiting narrative.

And journalists wonder why people don't find them credible...

A Selective Grasp of History

Josh Marshall is usually pretty level-headed as far as progressives go, which is why I find his TPM post claiming that "the American right has a deep-seated problem with political violence" somewhat surprising.

Granted, he is wise enough to make sure he confines himself to the American right, because it is beyond dispute that globally, it is leftist movements that win the dubious prize of being the most violent in human history, putting 120 million human beings on ice in the last century alone.

And there is indeed some truth to claims that rightist groups have been responsible for much of the political violence in the country. The Ku Klux Klan—a conservative supremacist organization even though it was a formation of and ally to the Democrat Party in the majority of its iterations—was behind much of the political violence in this country for the better part of a century. And yes, there was a militia movement during the Clinton Presidency, which did lead to the murderous terrorist bombing orchestrated by Timothy McVeigh in 1995.

But Marshall is delusional—or perhaps just dishonest—if he doesn't believe that the American left is equally responsible for political violence in America.

We can start with union-organized violence if you would prefer, and I'm not just referring to the physical assaults SEIU members have committed in recent weeks. Or we could talk about the thuggish actions of Black Panthers during the most recent election, and their leftist allies in the Holder Justice Department that refuse to prosecute them.

Or we can talk about the police officers killed by leftists over the years in assassinations by the likes of IndyMedia's Andrew Mickel or other left wing radicals. Should we discuss the Park Police Station bombing in San Francisco? How about the Nyack, NY armored car robbery that left police officers and security guards dead?

We could also discuss the leftist plots to murder dozens of soldiers and their civilian dates at Fort Dix, or the attempt on the Detroit Police Department and its Benevolent Association that would have wiped out a restaurant filled with African-American families as well.

Or we could discuss the plans of radical leftists who desired to set up their own concentration camps in the American southwest:

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Perhaps it is a bit unfair of me to focus on those events. After all, those who would have carried out these plots did so in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the most part, and their attempts, while in earnest, were as incompetent then as their desire to socialize medicine is today.

Should we allow them a pass on their intent since they failed to kill the dozens of soldiers, police officers, and civilians that were the targets of their pipe and propane bombs? Or should we hold them responsible just for the relative handful of murders they were able to successfully commit? Or should we hold them responsible for both the murders they intended and those they were successful in? I'd suggest that our law demands the later, but it seems that leftist political violence is afforded a different standard in the eyes of the media, and certainly in the mythology they attempt to create.

If you follow the links I provided, you'll note that the bombings of the non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix and the targeting of various police stations can be traced back to the leadership of the Weather Underground, a left wing terrorist group. The leaders of that group, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, threw Barack Obama his first political fundraiser after Ayers and Obama spent time together on the boards of various left-wing groups.

Obama, of course, in now President, and overseas a government that has attempted to label common American values as those of extremists even as it refuses to investigate groups such as the Black Panthers, ACORN, or the unions that are behind much of the thuggish behavior we've seen within recent months.

Americans of all walks of life know extremism when they see it, and they learned long ago fear it when it takes control of the government. Americans have purchased millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition since Barack Obama and his progressive allies swept into power, and yet, there has been only sporadic right wing violence. The fact of the matter is that freedom-loving Americans on the right will not accept tyranny without a fight, but we will not start the battle. It is a purely defensive posture that the right has taken, despite continued leftist provocations.

The simple fact of the matter is that our radicalized left wing government and their sympathies to true radicals is a far greater threat to or way of life than those Americans who have chosen to take precautions against tyranny.

That our current President has sympathies and relationships with those who fantasized about putting their Americans in concentration camps is a far greater threat to this nation's future than those who have chosen to arm themselves against the possibility of a government that has forgotten it is exists to serve the people.

Debunking the Latest Violence Policy Center Propaganda

The VPC — an organization funded by Obama when he sat on the Joyce Foundation — invents their own reality with an assault on gun rights.

Seems rather fitting, considering how much of the progressive agenda is based upon a community-based reality.

About Those Open Carry Advocates in Phoenix, and the Liberals Who Loathe Them

As I hopefully made clear last night, I think that open-carrying firearms at political protests—even when perfectly legal—is needlessly provocative and counter-productive. While the open carry advocates are attempting to get across a message that open-carrying guns is legal and hope to normalize the practice, doing so at an event where there is already political controversy is going to have the opposite effect and polarize those who might otherwise be more accepting of their message.

But while I disagree with the idea of open-carrying at political events, I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious "other" rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen).

And despite the shrieking we're hearing for the hyperbole-prone left, there is not a double-standard at play between the security afforded this President and the last.

One blogger at Firedoglake whined:

Once again we see how irony deficiency maims the conservative's ability to reason: those most terrified of The Negro Socialist Non-Citizen Grandmother-Killing President taking away their assault weaponry [roll eyes here] are free who to openly carry them at Obama events without fear of reprisal.

Could you even begin to imagine that sort of apparently lackadaisical approach during Bush's Orwellian tenure? Contemplate what would have happened to audience members had they shown up at one of Bush's "socha scurty" town halls packing heat. People wearing even vaguely anti-Bush t-shirts were summarily ejected from his little Potemkin village affairs and those whose cars brandished "liberal" bumper stickers were no doubt assigned to some DHS anti-American no-fly list. Anyone with a firearm at a Bush event would have found himself wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackles faster than you could say "Dick Cheney's man-sized safe."

Maha wails a similar lament:

The forces of civility already are bowing to the pressure of the mob. We might remember that people wearing anti-Bush T-shirts were not allowed to be within view of Dear Leader, whereas law enforcement can do very little about visibly angry people carrying loaded firearms in the streets.

Both of these bloggers are making false comparisons, without any merit whatsoever.

The armed protesters at events in Arizona and New Hampshire were never "at" Obama's meetings. They were never inside of the security perimeter that the Secret Service establishes for Presidential appearances. They weren't ever close.

The protester in New Hampshire who had a gun in a tactical drop-leg rig was on private property well away from the Obama appearance (I've heard estimates of ½ to ¾ mile away) and was never in direct line of sight of either the venue or the motorcade. He never remotely a threat to the President, nor did he intend to be.

Likewise, those open carry advocates at yesterday's event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service's security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

As for the citizens ejected by the Secret Service during President Bush's meetings in the past, I can't claim to know much about the specific instances they refer to, but they do make clear these were citizens inside the event location when they were ejected.

It is always well within the Secret Service's discretion to eject unruly citizens or suspected agitators from Presidential appearances as a matter of security, just as it is their duty to arrest and detain anyone who attempts to breach the perimeter with a potential weapon (As they did another protester in New Hampshire last week).

These mewling cries of left-wing bloggers that the Secret Service is somehow applying a double-standard isn't remotely "reality-based." It is an attempt to make an apples and oranges argument, and a weak one at that.

A Bad Idea Escalates

The lefty blogs are beside themselves (indeed, Gawker John Cook seems like he is about to lose bladder control) over the fact that about a dozen open carry advocates attended the protest outside Barack Obama's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, AZ today. Much to the dismay of the commenters at many of those sites, openly carrying firearms is completely legal in Arizona.

It also appears that protestors on both sides may have been armed.

As much as I support the open carry movement in theory, I have a very hard time seeing open carry at a political event full of people as anything other than a very bad idea. It is needlessly provocative (and I suspect in many instances, purposefully so), and potentially dangerous.

While the protestors themselves may not have any intent to use the firearms they are carrying, open carry in dense, emotional crowds opens up a whole host of possible scenarios that could end in disaster. I'd be rather surprised if any were using holsters with any sort of locking retention devices.

The man who got the greatest amount of attention was carrying a Carbon-15 rifle with a 30-round magazine and an EOTech sight slung over his back; not the best way to retain and control your weapon in a crowd.

The people on both sides were of course well within their legal rights to carry at this event.

Whether or not openly carrying firearms to a political protest is intelligent is another matter entirely.

Obama Administration Distances Itself, From Itself, On Health Care " Public Option"

Repeats of performances like this may lead to a Presidency that reaches "lame duck" status in record time.

That isn't the proverbial fat lady you hear singing, but Hillary clearing her pipes for her next run at the Oval Office four years earlier than anticipated.

Blogger's Presidential Aspirations Crushed

Dang.

So much for that Owens-Treacher dream ticket.

"War Ramping Up"

From Michael Yon, two hours ago with no further explanation:

On the move but will Twitter this right now!

War ramping up here in Afghanistan.

Source of All Reports that Radical Hate Groups Are Forming on the Right is ONE GUY...

...who is a radical left wing former journalist and Huffington Post blogger, at that.

Mark Potok has made quite the career for himself at the Southern Poverty Law Center finding right-wing hate behind every tree to ensure that donations to his non-profit keep rolling in. But as Sweetness & Light note in the link above, Potok bases his claims that right wing hate groups are exploding by his claims of online growth, even as web traffic to the web sites of hate groups remain remarkably constant and in some cases has regressed.

The truly pathetic thing about Potok is that "news" organizations know very well that Potok is a former journalist with an ideological axe to grind.

They have every reason to suspect that the quality and objectivity of his findings are hopelessly biased and are no doubt heavily influenced by his need to raise funds for the organization, which long ago ceased existing for any reason other than to collect money to regurgitate a continual stream of reports to bring in more donations. The SPLC's reports are nothing more than a vicious circle of predictable fear-mongering trotted out at regular intervals to raise funds.

It's a nice racket, I suppose. Potok gets to get his hate on and get paid for it. In doing so, the left wing radical gives reliably dim reporters like Brian Ross and his peers a canned story to run every so often that validates their own biases and preconceptions. They consider it a "win-win" I'm sure.

And it all comes from one guy, who quite his job as a report and declared himself a civil rights expert.

Must be nice work, if you can get it.

Update: Some of that right wing hate. Dave Chapelle would be proud.

Above 10,000 Feet, You're Supposed to Use Oxygen

But it obviously wasn't making it to her brain:

...in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) - recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee - made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I'm boating.

Via Michelle Malkin, who wonders who will play the dowdy ditz Stabenow on SNL.

Lib Talker Ed Schultz Says Conservatives "Want Obama to Get Shot;" Ignores Fact Most Presidential Assassins are Leftists and/or Nuts

Fresh off of liberal talker Mike Malloy calling for Glenn Beck to commit suicide live on television, liberal blowhard Ed Shultz has the gall to claim that conservatives want President Obama murdered, apparently for Marxism that Shultz seemed ready to concede:

SCHULTZ (04:53): Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do! I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out. They *fear* socialism, they fear Marxism. They fear that the United States of America won't be the United States of America anymore.

It's nice for Shultz to admit Obama's ideology is somewhere between socialism and Marxism, but let's get to his key claim, that conservative broadcasters want President Obama to be shot.

In a nation of more than 300 million people, there are always extremists to either side of every sitting President who would like to think their problems would go away if the President was killed, but who acts upon these impulses, and who rarely goes beyond rhetoric? The evidence beyond the rhetoric is clear.

There have been more than 83 (and as many as 90) attempted Presidential assassinations or plots, and four assassination attempts were successful.

John Wilkes Booth's Ford Theater killing of Abraham Lincoln was the murder of a liberal Republican President by a conservative southern Democrat. James Garfield's killing was the work of a deranged Charles Guiteau. The other two successful assassinations were the work of leftist radicals Leon Czolgosz (McKinley) and Lee Harvey Oswald (Kennedy). 50-percent of successful assassinations were carried out by leftists.

In a quick scan of Wikipedia's list of assassination attempts and plots, we find that of those attempts listed, eight were carried out by people with leftist ideologies, while just two had a clearly conservative ideology (the rest were had unclear ideologies, were criminals, terrorists, or had a wide range mental health issues). The list provided by Wikipedia is of course very incomplete, but it is clear in showing that the most committed assassins (in a non-mental health facility sort of way) have been various leftists.

Any why, praytell, would any conservative boradcaster (or any conservative, for that matter) want Barack Obama assassinated?

The death of the 44th President would leave us with President Joe Biden. No conservative—no American—wants that horror foisted upon us. And even if a plot could be devised to remove both the current President and Vice President, then we would be left with something even worse: President Nancy Pelosi.

Shultz can prattle on insanely on MSNBC as he is wont to do, but the simple fact of the matter is that no conservative wants anything but a long life for President Obama.

The thought of the incompetent alternatives waiting in the wings is too much to bear.

My Fellow Citizens Confuse Me

According to a new poll, only 54-percent of North Carolinians believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Overall, 26-percent says he wasn't, and 20-percent said they weren't sure.

Obama won North Carolina in 2008 with 49.9-percent of the vote to McCain's 49.5.

Does that mean that quite a few people voted for him even though they weren't sure he was eligible? Or were they simply so fed up with Republicans (and John McCain's poor imitation of one) that they'd rather elect a "foreigner" than a RINO?

A Tale of Two Guns At Obama's Town Hall

A protester on private property well outside the security perimeter established for Barack Obama's town hall meeting yesterday carried a pistol in an exposed "tactical" thigh rig hours before the President arrived in New Hampshire. He got quite a bit of attention for his rather foolish effort.

There was absolutely nothing illegal about his actions, much to the consternation of the media, but it was still a pointless bit of provocation. In addition to being armed, he was holding a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of Liberty," an obvious reference to the famous Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So who and what is William Kostric?

The sign itself provides the first clue about what kind of person Kostric is and who he associates with, with the URL to restoretherepublic.com printed prominently at the bottom. The site clearly identifies itself as part of the fringe "free state" movement, and actively promotes various conspiracy theories... and of course, Ron Paul.

A left-wing blog claims to have found his MySpace page, and it appears to confirm that Kostric is—well,—what most of us would call nuts.

All that aside, like Gaius, I'm curious...

...Why is Captain Conspiracy wearing an earpiece?

The possibility of him being a purposeful diversion seems legitimate, if you factor in that another man, Richard Terry Young, ended up being arrested at the same event for having an unlicensed, loaded handgun in his vehicle. Young was first stopped because of a pocket knife he had as he tried to enter the event, and the gun was discovered in his vehicle in a subsequent search.

It is quite possible that both men were acting independently, but if I were in charge of the President's security, I'd want that verified for certain.

Was A Key Anti-Palin Blogger Hired to Attack Her By Progressives?

While there isn't a smoking gun as of yet, it is very hard to see where else this might lead.

I tend to like what I've seen of Sarah Palin as a person even if I've not agreed with every position she's held. Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many progressives (including most of the media) and RINOs attack her like she's such a threat to all they hold dear. If she really is the ditzy Caribou Barbie they constantly make her out to be, then why are they even bothering discussing her?

The fact that they treat her like a lethal threat does more for her mystique than anything she's actually done, and I suspect it is going to eventually backfire and give her some sort of underdog status if they don't learn to control their attacks a bit better. I don't think that she's a great politician, but I do love the way she's a catalyst to bring out the crazies.

SEIU Isn't the Only Union Trying to Control Health Care Town Halls

A family friend went to the SEANC-organized town hall in Greenville, NC last night. According to the local news, the union of state employees was there to support the President's health care plan, and it seemed a cut-and-dried and rather boring affair.

Reality, however was far different that the news account. Here is Walter's experience, in his own words.

SEANC Meeting on Healthcare Reform August 10, 2009.

I arrived at about 6:35 to a sparely filled auditorium. Eventually, about 100 people showed up. The room had several blue-shirted "bouncer" types standing around the walls. Several blue shirted people had cameras, still and video. There was an air of intimidation presented by the blue-shirted SEANC people. Two ECU Police officers stood in the back inconspicuously.

We were approached by a well dressed man asking if we would be willing to sign a petition in support of the healthcare bill. We declined and the man immediately went to the back of the room and spoke with a blue-shirted man. He did not ask anyone else to sign the petition. I believe he was trying to find out our position on the issue.

The meeting started on time and the panel members were well prepared and articulate. They presented a party line on the issues. Dr. Cook and Mr. Stone were especially factual about the problems. Ms. Keel had some impelling statistics reinforcing the need for change. I disagreed with her conclusions. Mr. Dana ??? was not as factual, but was a good panel member. He was too focused on his opinion that House Bill 3200 was the only solution.

The moderator, Jean ???, was not effective. She seemed to lack a plan for fielding questions, was argumentative and interrupted frequently. She made people more frustrated and more intense. An effective moderator would have been more respectful and calming to the audience. She was biased toward opposing speakers and cut them off. She limited their time by signaling SEANC officials to take the mike from speakers.

After each panel member spoke briefly the floor was open to the audience to make comments and ask questions. One small business man related his concerns about mandatory healthcare costs to him and asked questions. He got a few answers and some misstatements of fact. He got frustrated and somewhat intense. Several others made comments in opposition and asked questions that were not answered. The moderator asked for someone supporting the bill to speak! One did.

One of the men who asked several questions became frustrated that those questions were not being answered and his concerns were not addressed. The moderator kept interrupting him and some in the audience talked him down. Eventually, a SEANC official asked him for the mike while the man was trying to express his concerns. After a second request for the mike, the SEANC official took the mike from him forcefully.

A bit later it was my turn. As I was handed the mike I told the SEANC official he wasn't taking the mike from me until I was finished talking. He told me, "That guy will take it from you" and he pointed to the ECU Police officer standing in the back of the room. I felt like I was being threatened. However, I responded, "No, Sean won’t do that." Officer Scott is a friend and a man I respect.

I stated my opposition to the bill while supporting the need for healthcare reform. My statements addressed:

• Speaker Pelosi's insinuation that those who oppose the House bill in Town Hall meeting are "Un- American" and that those of us who oppose the bill are not genuine. We are "Astro Turf."
• The pro bill supporters at the national level and local level demonizing those who oppose the bill as anti healthcare reform.
• The option of eliminating employer sponsored healthcare insurance and allowing free market options for all people.

While I was talking several SEANC members behind me told me that this was their meeting, to sit down and stop talking. I am a SEANC member and have a right to speak. I am a US citizen with First Amendment rights.

For most of my time talking several talked over me and I was interrupted by the moderator Jean ?? She responded to one of my questions about alternative healthcare plans and she said she did not know of any. To that I responded that she was uninformed. She asserted she was informed.

I gave up and handed the mike to Dale.

Throughout the meeting we were videotaped when speaking and many still photos were taken. As I left the building I was videotaped again. Who knows how these images will be used. It sure felt intimidating.

After the meeting I spoke with Dale and we worked out our disagreement. He even called me today to apologize again and I apologized also. He invited me to a SEANC board meeting to present opposition views. I respect that willingness and openness.

A SEANC member prison guard also attended the same contentious event, and posted a response online that confirmed the attempt by SEANC to shout down anyone with opposing viewpoints.

It turned out the last thing anyone organizing this event wanted to do was discuss anything. Basically they were there to pat themselves on the back and inform SEANC members that the organization was totally behind the health care bill. Anyone who was opposed too the bill that dared to speak was shouted down, cut short and in one instance the microphone was actually taken from someone.

I walked in to work this morning and the first thing I did was to go to Admin and cancel my SEANC membership. If you do not support the health care bill, if you do not support your membership dues being used to support SEIU and possibly going to groups like ACORN then I encourage you to do the same if you were foolish enough as I was to join them in the first place.

SEANC didn't beat anyone down at this meeting, but they certainly didn't have any desire to hear opposing viewpoints, snatching the microphone away from SEANC members opposed to Obamacare and unwisely threatening to have police officers do their dirty work.

Even in this union meeting, there was more opposition to Obamacare among the rank and file than acceptance. I wonder if Obamacare is as unpopular among the rank and file in other unions as well.

Chill, Hill

Project much?

ABC News' Kirit Radia reports: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman.

"My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied. "If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal.

Make sure to watch the video clip at the link to get a full appreciation of the venom Hillary directs at this poor student because of a botched translation.

Yikes.

Where is Kenneth Gladney's White House Invite?

So if a black Harvard professor gets arrested for being a jerk, it's worth a beer at the White House.

A different black man getting beat up by union thugs in St. Louis while handing out flags espousing liberty apparently isn't as important to the President.

VIDEO: Architect of Democratic Health Care Plan States His Plan Is Designed to Eliminate Private Insurace

Via Ace, who questions our President's honesty... as you should.

Pelosi, Hoyer Decry First Amendment as "Un-American;" Are Dead-Silent on Democratic Violence

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have their editorial posted this morning as Drudge promised. Pelosi and Hoyer lambasted grassroots protests at town hall health care meetings as "un-American." If one were capable of feeding a monster on hypocrisy, this editorial would satiate the beast from Cloverfield.

There is simply no need to go into detail about the kind of disruptive protests that Pelosi has directly praised coming from her fellow progressives in recent years. If you want or need those details, however—perhaps to help a friend with a convenient case of amnesia—some of my fellow bloggers have taken the time to do just that.

I think what annoys me the most about this progressive Congress and President is the fact that they are quite supportive of fake grassroots (astroturf) efforts from groups they have organized and supported both vocally and financially (ACORN, MoveOn.org, ANSWER, Code Pink), but they then turn around and lash out at real grassroots efforts of self-organized local citizens that came together via blogs and Facebook pages.

The simple face of the matter is that the progressives do not want dissent. They want obedience. As the President himself said last week, opponents of his plan should shut up so that he can pass the legislation he wants.

Towards that end, Democrats aren't above calling in union muscle. They are more than willing to buy silence with pushes, punches, and kicks. The did so around the nation last week, and to the best I can determine, there has been precisely no condemnation from Democratic politicians for that orchestrated violence. Why would there be, when they ordered it?

But these same spoiled children of the left have the temerity to cry out in anger when a frustrated protester suggests that future Democratic violence should be met with violence. You can't have it both ways, Democrats.

Let citizens voice their opinions without attacking them, without demonizing them, without calling them evil or smearing them as part of some of a political machine. Perhaps if Madame Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer and the other progressive Democrats trying to ram this deeply-flawed bill down the throats of Americans were actually open to real debate on Capitol Hill, they wouldn't encounter so much vocal opposition in the rest of America.

How Much Op-Sec is Too Much?

Thoughts on the Marine Corps social media ban, at Pajamas Media.

Truth Does Not Matter In The Health Care "Debate"

I'm not sure there are too many places you can turn this morning without hearing about the confrontations that have broken out at several "town hall" meetings about health care reform yesterday.

An Obama supporter brazenly stepped forth to rip the sign out of a protester's hands in Denver.

Six people were arrested at the St. Louis event. A black man there was called a racial slur and assaulted severely enough by the mob that he required treatment in the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center. The injured man, Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative from St. Louis, was handing out Gadsden flags to the crowd when attacked.

At a similar event in Tampa, organizers apparently assaulted protesters in order to try to close the doors to a meeting there that the protesters were drowning out with chants. There were no arrests but the assault was captured on amateur video, and a series of photos shows a female supporter of Obamacare pushing the face of a protester. The woman and her husband has been tentatively identified as officers in a local Democratic organization.

In these events, organized union labor (SEIU) appears to have been brought in by Democratic organizers to fill the halls with supporters to provide the appearance of local support for the health care bill that liberal Democrats are attempting to force through the House of Representatives. In both events, conservative protesters that have been assaulted, apparently without provocation. Perhaps the unions were there to provide "muscle" as well.

And yet if you look to the media or the blogosphere or the government itself, you see a very well-coordinated message going out that "right wing mobs" are responsible for opposing a bill that a simple majority of the country opposes as the wrong solution to the problem.

There has always been gamesmanship, bias, and even flat-out lying in American politics, but I've been simply amazed at the messaging orchestration between the media, left-wing activist groups, liberal bloggers, and senior Democratic Party politicians all the way up to and including the Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the House, and the President of the United States himself.

These socialists—let's call them what they are—are pushing hard for a version of health reform that a majority of Americans simple do not want. They are pushing for a complete gutting of our health care system, even though 74-percent of us rate our care as "good" or "excellent." They are pushing a plan that 50-percent of Americans believe will lead to a decline in the quality of their coverage, and that 78-percent know will lead to higher taxes on the middle class.

Democrats in Congress can pass this legislation without a single Republican vote, just as they did the stimulus bill. They hold a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, and have a President itching to sign the nationalization of health care into law.

But the simple truth of the matter is that conservative and moderate Blue Dog Democrats know the stench of a rotten bill when they smell it. It is Blue Dog Democrats that have joined independents and Republicans in opposing a plan that the majority of the country does not expect to benefit anyone other than those who want to increase the size of government, and to insert the power of the government even further into your life.

The radical left wing of the Democratic Party, their activist groups and their adoring co-conspirators in the media seem to be doing everything in their power to demonize and shout down the majority of Americans unhappy with their scheming. They've resorted to slander. They've resorted to libel. They've lied unabashedly and outrageously. And now it seems they've resorted to physical thuggery in an attempt to silence their opposition.

I do not pretend to know how this is going to end, but the course that they are charting and precedent they are setting is not one that will likely end well.

Confirmed: Left Wing Blogger Created Obama's (Fake) Birth Certificate

So really, who is stoking the so-called "birther" movement?

Democratic officials and left wing bloggers like to pretend that the issue is a creation of Republicans, even though the claim that Obama was not born in the United States can be definitively traced back to Hillary Clinton-supporting Democratic blogs.

Now, a left wing blogger has come forth to claim responsibility for creating the birth certificate published on WorldNetDaily that created such buzz early in the week, even though it was decried as a fake almost immediately.

The Nation Claims Blackwater's Founder Prince Committed Murder... with This?

Jeremy Scahill reports in a stunning article in The Nation that Blackwater founder Eric Prince committed murder to cover up a multitude of crimes committed by his companies. Scahill relies heavily on the allegations from two "John Doe" declarations. Doe #1 is reputedly a former Marine that worked for Blackwater as a security contractor, but the most damning claims from Doe #2,who claims to have been a Blackwater executive for four years.

The problem is, his most damning testimony hinges upon claims that don't even make sense.

If you're going to allege weapon smuggling,try something that sounds more credible than imaginary weapons, such as "sawed-off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers," or non-existent exploding bullets.

Deranged Pelosi: Healthcare Protestors are "Carrying Swastikas"

Fresh off of orchestrated attempts by the Democratic party and liberal blogs to smear anti-Obamacare protesters as part of a paid-for astroturfing effort (you know, like ACORN and MoveOn), the queen of San Francisco now one-ups herself with claims that those protesters are carrying swastikas to townhall meetings:

Interviewer: Do you think there's legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they're Astroturf... You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.

Let this be a warning to you all: too much botox can eventually lead to brain death.

My Congressman is Scared of His Constituents

According to TPMDC, my congressman, Brad Miller, won't be meeting with his constituents in any large-scale meetings over the August break because he has received threatening phone calls over his support for a dangerously flawed Obamacare bill. His office says that another reason he won't be having a townhall is because of the "fake grass roots" that have dominated other events around the country.

I don't get involved in protests or meetings, but I do live here, and I do keep my eyes open. There is nothing at all fake about the widespread and growing bipartisan opposition in this area to this healthcare bill, even if Miller's office and other Democrats would like pretend are the handiwork that the same Republican operatives that botched the 2008 elections so badly.

Uh, no.

Brad will presumably spend August quaking in his loafers behind locked doors, counting down the days until he can flee back to D.C., away from his angry constituents.

How You, Too, Can Meet a Member of the Secret Service

As John Hawkins notes over at Right Wing News, the Obama Joker poster meme is spreading like wildfire, and variations are being posted across the country, with people hoping to cash in with tee shirts, bumper stickers, and even ties.

Knowing the universal desire to turn a quick buck, I imagine that it won't be too long before someone comes up with the idea to PhotoShop President Obama as other movie villains.

Just be care which villain you decide to use.

While Two-Face is a logic choice (and an extension of the Batman-related theme), other selections might just earn you a visit from people who don't smile much.

Choose wisely.

Shock: Pennsylvania Gym Shooter A Sexually Frustrated Loser

Last night a 48-year-old man walked into a class full of women at a gym, cut off the light, and started shooting. When it was over, at least three women were dead and up to 15 were injured. The shooter, George Sodini, killed himself after his rampage.

ABC News has excerpts from his web site, http://georgesodini.com (now offline), where he reveals that he had not had sex in nearly 20 years, was a racist, had issues with his family members, and had a very warped understanding of religion.

I'll try not to politicize this too much. It's a senseless, vindictive act of a person suicidally unhappy with his own life and who selfishly wanted to hurt as many other people as possible before he ended it.

George Sodini committed this horrific crime with the hope of going to Heaven when it was over. I strongly suspect he's not happy with where he most likely ended up.

Unhinged, or a Terror Suspect

A 53-year-old Quogue, NY woman has been charged with third degree trespassing—not exactly national news.

That she was arrested while snapping pictures at the perimeter of an Air National base and was found armed with a shotgun, semi-automatic Bushmaster XM15 (and M4-style carbine) and over 500 rounds of ammunition is something that should be getting this story quite a bit more attention that it has so far.

The end of the story seems to hint that authorities think she might have psychiatric problems, but that doesn't mean she was any less of a potential threat.

Orly Taitz Has Lost Her Mind... and Her Remaining Credibility

Anyone as obsessed as anti-Obama lawyer Orly Taitz is tough to view as anything as a hardcore partisan, even thought the softest lens.

Now Taitz, who foisted upon us the most recent faked Obama birth certificate, is trying to play the victim:

1. Kenya became an independant country in 1963, not 1964. The seal of Kenya was correct.

2. More then one person had certified copies of this document.

3. the document was not issued at birth, but rather was a certified copy obatained [sic] in1964, when Kenya became independent

4. The documents from that time would not show Zanzibar, but rather Kenya

5. Bomford report was created to try to discredit my efforts

6.lastly, I am not supposed to waste my time and money on this issue, Obama us the one who is supposed to provide evidence of legitimacy

7. Kenyan BC provides more info than the piece of garbage Obama posted on the n et [sic], which doesn't have the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures.

8. Chioumi Fukino and Obama and all their Nazi Brown Shirts in the main stream media need to give it a rest and provide an original hospital BC and the corresponding big thick hospital Birthing file from the Kapiolani hospital. If they don't have such a file, all of them need to resign immediately or they will be prosecuted for massive fraud and treason to this Nation.

As noted by Salon, nobody debated when Kenya became independent; what we disputed—and disputed here—was the absolute fact that the nation was the Dominion of Kenya when the document claims to have been was produced, and the document claims it was the Republic of Kenya, which it did not become until ten months later.

As for Bomford... see what the man has to say for himself. Hardly created to debunk Taitz, the middle-aged Australian who's birth certificate was copied to create the forgery is quite amused by the attention.

There are 27 million Americans on anti-depressants.

And at least one of those needs her dosage adjusted.

FISA Evidence Key Against North Carolina Jihadis

WRAL reports that the Willow Springs, NC men seven men arrested on terrorism charges have a court date this morning. The most interesting part of the story—which mainly recycles previously known information and expected security precautions—is what the key evidence against the men seems to be.

Nothing like burying the lede:

The charges against Daniel Boyd, the alleged ringleader of the operation, and the other suspects refer to buying guns and training in military tactics – acts that by themselves aren't criminal – as well as raising money and traveling abroad.

Kieran Shanahan, a Raleigh lawyer and former federal prosecutor,said electronic surveillance will play a key role in the case.

The U.S. Attorney's Office already has filed notices that it plans to use evidence gathered through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against each defendant. FISA sets out how intelligence on foreign agents in the U.S., including suspected terrorists, can be gathered.

It would be very interesting to know if the FISA evidence to be used in trial was done through the old/new FISA procedure, or through the streamlined program started by the Bush Administration that got lefties in such a huff. As Boyd has possibly been under surveillance for years, it is quite possible that both could have been used.

Will Eric Holder's Justice Department prosecute using ideologically "bad" evidence?

You bet they will.

The Obligatory "Obama As Joker" Reaction

A lot of people are getting their noses out of joint about a poster popping up around Los Angeles comparing President Barack Obama to the Joker.

Frankly, I don't get it.

One embraces terrorists and madmen, is dedicated to anarchy and the destruction of capitalist society, and sends the population fleeing in horror from his creations.

The other is a fictional character played by the late Heath Ledger.

Update: Racist.

Another (Faked) Obama Birth Certificate Found

Free Republic is going absolutely bonkers over a document claiming to be an official copy of his Kenyan Birth Certificate, posted at World Net Daily.

It's a poor forgery.

If you look at the document and scroll down to the bottom, you will see on the left side the reputed embossed official seal, and under it, "Office of the Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya."

Directly to the right of that seal is the issue date of the document, the "17th day of February, 1964."

The was no Republic of Kenya in February of 1964.

From December 12, 1963 to December 12, 1964, the Dominion of Kenya existed under Queen Elizabeth, with Governor General Malcolm MacDonald in charge.

The Republic of Kenya did not exist when this document was supposed to be issued.

Details, details...

Update: Some in the comments are still attempting to argue that the certificate might be legitimate because the link's above to Wikipedia aren't good sources. That's fine with me.

Here's what the Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about the creation of the post-colonial government of Kenya:

A coalition government of the two parties was formed in 1962, and after elections in May 1963 Kenyatta became prime minister under a constitution that gave Kenya self-government. Following further discussions in London, Kenya became fully independent on Dec. 12, 1963. A year later, when Kenya became a republic (with Kenyatta as its first president and Oginga Odinga as vice president), most KADU members had transferred their allegiance to KANU, and KADU ceased to exist.

Just as I said, the nation ceased to be a British colony on December 12, 1963. A year later, on December 12, 1964, it became the Republic of Kenya. Any document released in February of 1964, 10 months before the Kenyan government decided to call it a republic, is a fake.

The Definitive Evidence: From the Parliament of Kenya's official web site:

Uhuru Day The interim period of Internal Self-government, did not witness any major constitutional changes. The constitutional provisions finalized in February, 1963 remained virtually the same.At midnight on December 11, 1963 , Kenya regained Independence from the United Kingdom.

Kenya remained a dominion within the British Commonwealth , with a Governor-General representing Her Majesty locally and a Government headed by a Prime Minister.

Again, establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Dominion of Kenya was established in 1963... unless you think they Keyan government doesn't know their own history.

And there is more, again from the official web site of the Kenyan Parliament:

The composition to the Legislature and the framework of the Government at Independence remained in place until the first anniversary. Arising from close negotiations between the Government and the Opposition, a merger of all the parties represented in the House, under the Kenya African National Union - K.A.N.U. and under the leadership of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta was concluded and took effect on December 12, 1964 with the voluntary dissolution of the Kenya African Democratic Union - K.A.D.U. and the African Peoples Party - A.P.P. This merger meant an unanticipated de facto one party status. On December 12, 1964 , Kenya declared herself a Sovereign Republic within the Commonwealth.

Read that last line one more time.

The document is a fake, kids.

Give. It. Up.

Stick-A-fork-In_It Update: Via the Washington Independent, strong evidence that the original "Kenyan" birth certificate forgery is based upon an Australian BC of David Jeffrey Bomford.