Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts

Saturday, October 12, 2013

12 More Photos From the Truckers Ride for the Constitution You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #T2SDA #PatriotTruckers

You can see Part I here:



Related: 15 Photos From the DC Truckers Ride for the Constitution You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #T2SDA @T2SDA.

Friday, October 11, 2013

15 Photos From the DC Truckers Ride for the Constitution You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #T2SDA @T2SDA

We regular Americans salute you!


Update: 12 More Photos From the Truckers Ride for the Constitution You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #T2SDA

Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Monday, October 07, 2013

There, I fixed it for you, Cory Booker

Spotted this ad on a website:


Which prompted me to repair it:


For those unfamiliar with the tale, New Jersey's hard left Senate candidate Cory Booker has an imaginary drug-dealer friend named "T-Bone", who he uses to add a little spice to his stories. Suffice it to say that T-Bone is about as real as Booker's record for good governance in Newark.

If you have the wherewithal, please consider supporting conservative Steve Lonegan for U.S. Senate. His website is a great resource for background on Booker, who has a sordid history of extreme and bizarre behavior.


Saturday, October 05, 2013

LISTEN UP, REPUBLICANS ON THE SUNDAY SHOWS: Here are your damn talking points...

Write 'em down on your hand if you need to:



Thursday, October 03, 2013

Storming the Barackades

Guest post by Hans von Spakovsky

Americans are justifiably angry over the political game being played by the Obama administration to barricade the World War II Memorial in Washington. And they should be. Under federal law, there is no justifiable reason for closing the memorial.

On Tuesday, the National Park Service put up barricades around the open-air memorial that is normally accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when Park Service personnel are not there. Police threatened to arrest visiting veterans, who came to Washington as part of Honor Flight, a non-profit that gives veterans free transportation so they can see war memorials.

It is one of the most blatant and shameful political stunts being carried out by the White House, which appears intent on keeping the government shut down to protect Obamacare.

How do we know this is purely political theater? Because under applicable federal law – and the interpretation of that law by both the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget — all “law enforcement” operations of the federal government are exempted from being shut down during any funding lapse.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

The New Republic suggests Obama dissolve Congress, exterminate opponents, and install himself as Dictator

Guest post by Eric Boehm

Apparently, this is what The New Republic thinks about our old republic.

In a post Wednesday afternoon, Julia Ioffe made a not-so-subtle suggestion about how she thinks chief executives should handle opposition from democratically-elected legislators.

“What is a president in a presidential constitutional republic to do when faced with an intransigent, bull-headed faction among his people’s representatives?” she asks, rhetorically.

The answer, of course, is to do exactly what Boris Yeltsin did in Russia in 1993: dissolve the parliament — known at the time as the “Supreme Soviet” — and do what you want.

But Yeltsin didn’t just shut down the Russian parliament in 1993. No, he literally ordered tanks to shell the building, while some of the leaders of the parliament were still inside because they refused to let the chief executive act in such a dictatorial manner.

More than 100 people died in the riots that ensued during the 10-day siege of the parliament building, ironically called “The White House.”

According to an account from The Guardian on the 10-year anniversary of Yeltsin’s aggressive negotiations, he didn’t just sack the parliament, but “also scrapped the constitution, replacing it with another that gave him near-monarchic executive powers.”

No wonder Russia has such a highly-functioning democracy two decades later.

Thankfully, it’s nearly impossible to imagine President Obama ordering the military to shell the U.S. House of Representatives because he blames them for shutting down the government.

But imperialists on the left can dream.

 
Boehm can be reached at EBoehm@Watchdog.org. 

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Media doing yeoman's work for Democrats; issuing shrill cries to try and blame #ObamaReidShutdown on GOP

Not unexpected, but surprisingly lame. Everyone knows a man whose starting negotiating position is that he will not negotiate is responsible not only for any shutdown that occurs but also perpetuating a dysfunctional government.

The Washington Bezos-Post: "House pushes U.S. to the edge of a shutdown"

CBS News-Rather: "Risking government shutdown, House GOP seeks Obamacare delay"

NBC-Sharpton News: "Shutdown nears as House passes funding bill that delays Obamacare"

MSNBC-Madcow News: "House Republicans embrace government-shutdown plan"

Al Reuters: "U.S. Republicans reject Senate bid to avoid government shutdown"

The New York Daily Bloomberg: "House Republicans Increase Likelihood of Government Shutdown"

The House holds the power of the purse. It is their Constitutional duty to pass responsible spending bills.

It is Obama and the Democrats who ignore all Constitutional checks and balances.

They will not negotiate with the House. They won't discuss even a single penny.

What does it say about a president who states quite explicitly that he will negotiate with terrorists, mass-murders and despots -- but not Republicans?

The radical extremists leading the Democrat Party -- men and women who refuse to negotiate -- are responsible for any shutdown that occurs.


Hat tip: The Minority Report.

The Dichotomy: An Illustrated Story

It's been a while since I published a "picture story" (examples here, here and here), but the latest news from Washington motivated me to create one.

Pathetic, ain't it?

Friday, September 27, 2013

HERE IS THE COMPLETE LIST: All of the Republicans (and Democrats) Who Just Voted to Fund Obamacare

Here is the complete list of drones, progressives, sellouts, hacks, and other miscreants (the first list) followed by the patriots (second list). Remember well these names next year.

YEAs (FUNDING OBAMACARE) ---79
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs (DE-FUNDING OBAMACARE)---19
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Hat tip: Anita

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Helping Out a Fellow Blogger in Trouble...

Unlike the big Leftist websites, there's no funding for independent conservative bloggers. There isn't a George Soros, a Bill Gates or some other billionaire behind the scenes. Most bloggers do it solely for love of country; there is little to no money involved in it for the vast majority.

With that in mind, I received this from a friend:

I spent about an hour on the phone with Mare yesterday because she has been so ill and in/out of the hospital all week.
Several things struck me about her situation (which is dire), among them:

Her laptop is broken (it got terminally damaged during the 2 Million Bikers to DC rally)

Her phone/internet/tv will be disconnected Monday or Tuesday.

Her electricity will be shut off this week as well.

If you have a few bucks to spare, visit Zilla's site and hit the Donate button. Thank you.


Friday, September 20, 2013

Karl Rove, the Bernie Madoff of the Republican Establishment, Gets Pimp-Slapped by Tom Delay on Defunding Fight

In all of American history, has there ever been a bigger campaign fundraising failure than Karl Rove?

Look at it only in terms of dollars wasted during a single election cycle. In 2012 alone, Rove torched $400 million on losing candidates, if Donald Trump's estimate is accurate.

As if that record wasn't enough, Rove's bizarre attacks on conservative candidates helped suppress the vote. Millions of members of the conservative base, discouraged by a squishy moderate presidential candidate and lack of a coherent attack on a failed president, boycotted the 2012 election.

Now Rove is attacking principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee; these are men who have actually taken a stand to stop the disastrous onset of Obamacare. As October 1st nears, hospitals are shedding jobs, full-time workers are being transitioned to part-time, and those with coverage are losing their coverage. State exchanges aren't ready for prime time, and the entire system is headed for a very ugly collapse.

This isn't a game! This is about right and wrong! This is about preserving the American Republic!

And Rove attacks those who are standing with the American people, claiming the threat of a government shutdown over defunding Obamacare is a losing proposition.

As usual Rove is dead wrong. During the last government shutdown, when a conservative House smacked Bill Clinton around and forced him to balance the budget, Delay was the House Majority Whip. He was there. Rove was not. He knows what transpired. Rove does not.

Interviewed on yesterday's Mark Levin show, Delay patiently explained to listeners -- using small words for Rove and his apparatchik Dana Perino -- the awesome benefits the Republicans accrued by standing up to Bill Clinton.

Levin: Now we're fighting over principle in the House [regarding defunding Obamacare] and your Senator is really one of the bright spots. He's one of the leaders of the Constitutional conservatives and he's under assault and not just by the Left, Tom Delay, not just by the Democrats, but by Republicans! What do you say about that?

Delay: I'm saddened by the Republicans attacking him, he's doing what he thinks is right, frankly, he's doing the right thing. I expect it from the Democrats, I mean the House changed their position, so he's having an impact.

Levin: And you can't win all these fights, can you?

Delay: No, you can't win them all, but you pick the ones you can win. In fact, you gotta fight! You gotta fight!

...Not only is Obamacare worth fighting over, it is a perfect political situation! It's great politics! Americans want Obamacare out of there. And when you can set up a situation where the Continuing Resolution, that funds the federal government, but doesn't fund Obamacare... then the whole issue is on Obamacare, where it needs to be!

Levin: Well, I'm troubled by so-called conservative media, too... it's like they're waging war against the conservatives... they're waging war against the base! That's kind of crazy, don't you think?

Delay: I have to tell you, I've been out there in the real world. And if the Republicans don't energize the base, they're going to have a hard time next year in the elections. Nothing energizes the base like a good fight -- and a good fight for the right reasons.

I've got to tell you, I was with a bunch of people that aren't connected to [DC] when it was reported that the House was moving in a different direction [to defund Obamacare in the Continuing Resolution]... and I've never seen such energy in these people...

Levin: What happened when the federal government shut down in 1995? Who won that?

Delay: It was the most important thing we ever did. I was there, I was the Majority Whip. We had sent the president [Clinton] a Continuing Resolution; we had cut 100 agencies, offices and programs under the Contract With America. And, of course, he didn't like that.

He vetoes the bill and shuts down the government. It was the best thing we ever did.

And we were 21 days fighting, which gave us the opportunity to explain to the American people, to tell our story, and the most important part was we took on the president.

And we used the leverage of the Constitutional power of the purse. And, unfortunately, Bob Dole went down on a Sunday afternoon and opened up the government, but even Clinton admitted that if we'd lasted one more day, he would have caved.

But the point is: we sent a signal to the President. This new majority will take you over the cliff. We're crazy. And the result of that was: for six years, Bill Clinton did not get to sign one major bill he initiated. Everything he signed -- he vetoed welfare reform twice and the balanced budget twice -- but then he took credit for them, but everything he signed was generated by the power of the purse out of the House of Representatives.

And the politics was great! I don't know where they [Rove and company] get that we took it on the chin as Republicans because we stood up and fought. We gained two or three Senate seats in the next election and we only lost a few House seats [retaining a huge majority].

Levin: Yep, we have Republicans [like Rove] rewriting history and it's a stunning thing.

As for Ted Cruz, the distinguished Senator from Texas has offered to debate Rove on his tactics for defunding Obamacare. Suffice it to say that Cruz will hear only crickets because Rove is a complete failure.


Rove is successful at fundraising, but his political track record is one only the '62 Mets could envy.

Rove is the Bernie Madoff of the Republican establishment. Anyone who sends him a single dollar might as well be lighting cigars with the money.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Hey, Remember the Jackass That Turned America's Military Bases into "Gun-Free Zones"?

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Security: As the usual suspects call for stricter gun control, the fact remains that a gunman with two prior gun-crime arrests entered a secure military facility with a stolen ID and found no one able to shoot back.

It was Fort Hood all over again. Aaron Alexis, a gunman whose prior behavioral warning signs were ignored, opens fire in an installation belonging to the most powerful military on Earth and those who protect our nation and design our weapons are not allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves.

He was more equipped than the 12 people he killed on the base who were not permitted to carry weapons on the base, thanks to former President Bill Clinton.

In 1993 the president issued orders that barred members of the military and their civilian contractors from carrying personal firearms on base. Even officers were disarmed under the law.

Almost as soon as Clinton assumed office, in March 1993 the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.

That ban extends to virtually all U.S military bases and related installations.

Under the ruling enacted by the Clinton administration, there must be "a credible and specific threat against personnel" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection."

This was the reason that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was able to go on a rampage for a full 10 minutes in 2009 without being stopped.

This is why, at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division, a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Hasan's terrorist rampage, to this day obscenely called "workplace violence," denying survivors and the dead medals and benefits.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

MARK LEVIN: My Answer to Harry Reid's Claim That Conservatives and Tea Party Activists Are 'Anarchists'

Guest post by Mark Levin


Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology.

Plato’s Republic, More’s Utopia, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Marx’s workers’ paradise are utopias that are anti-individual and anti-individualism. For the utopians, modern and olden, the individual is one-dimensional—selfish. On his own, he has little moral value. Contrarily, authoritarianism is defended as altruistic and masterminds as socially conscious. Thus endless interventions in the individual’s life and manipulation of his conditions are justified as not only necessary and desirable but noble governmental pursuits. This false dialectic is at the heart of the problem we face today.

In truth, man is naturally independent and self-reliant, which are attributes that contribute to his own well-being and survival, and the well-being and survival of a civil society. He is also a social being who is charitable and compassionate. History abounds with examples, as do the daily lives of individuals. To condemn individualism as the utopians do is to condemn the very foundation of the civil society and the American founding and endorse, wittingly or unwittingly, oppression. Karl Popper saw it as an attack on Western civilization. “The emancipation of the individual was indeed the great spiritual revolution which had led to the breakdown of tribalism and to the rise of democracy.” Moreover, Judaism and Christianity, among other religions, teach the altruism of the individual.

Of course, this is not to defend anarchy. Quite the opposite. It is to endorse the magnificence of the American founding. The American founding was an exceptional exercise in collective human virtue and wisdom—a culmination of thousands of years of experience, knowledge, reason, and faith. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable societal proclamation of human rights, brilliant in its insight, clarity, and conciseness. The Constitution of the United States is an extraordinary matrix of governmental limits, checks, balances, and divisions, intended to secure for posterity the individual’s sovereignty as proclaimed in the Declaration.

This is the grand heritage to which every American citizen is born. It has been characterized as “the American Dream,” “the American experiment,” and “American exceptionalism.” The country has been called “the Land of Opportunity,” “the Land of Milk and Honey,” and “a Shining City on a Hill.” It seems unimaginable that a people so endowed by Providence, and the beneficiaries of such unparalleled human excellence, would choose or tolerate a course that ensures their own decline and enslavement, for a government unleashed on the civil society is a government that destroys the nature of man.

On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Delegate James Wilson, on behalf of his ailing colleague from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, read aloud Franklin’s speech to the convention in favor of adopting the Constitution. Among other things, Franklin said that the Constitution “is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become corrupt as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. . . .”

Have we “become corrupt”? Are we in need of “despotic government”? It appears that some modern-day “leading lights” think so, as they press their fanatical utopianism. For example, Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine, considers the Constitution a utopian expedient. He wrote, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. . . . The framers weren’t afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.” It is beyond dispute that the Framers sought to limit the scope of federal power and that the Constitution does so. Moreover, constitutional change was not left to the masterminds but deliberately made difficult to ensure the broad participation and consent of the body politic.

Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, explained that the Constitution is an amazing document, as long as it is mostly ignored, particularly the limits it imposes on the federal government. He wrote, “This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans, and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.” Of course, without the promise of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution would not have been ratified, since the states insisted on retaining most of their sovereignty. Furthermore, the Framers clearly did not embrace the utopian change demanded by its modern adherents.

Lest we ignore history, the no-less-eminent American revolutionary and founder Thomas Jefferson explained, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and three-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, is even more forthright in his dismissal of constitutional republicanism and advocacy for utopian tyranny. Complaining of the slowness of American society in adopting sweeping utopian policies, he wrote, “There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Of course, China remains a police state, where civil liberties are nonexistent, despite its experiment with government-managed pseudo-capitalism. Friedman’s declaration underscores not only the necessary intolerance utopians have for constitutionalism, but their infatuation with totalitarianism.

It is neither prudential nor virtuous to downplay or dismiss the obvious—that America has already transformed into Ameritopia. The centralization and consolidation of power in a political class that insulates its agenda in entrenched experts and administrators, whose authority is also self-perpetuating, is apparent all around us and growing more formidable. The issue is whether the ongoing transformation can be restrained and then reversed, or whether it will continue with increasing zeal, passing from a soft tyranny to something more oppressive. Hayek observed that “priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for not having designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim . . . is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morals, law, and language, and on this basis to stamp out the older order and supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom, and justice.” But the outcome of this adventurism, if not effectively stunted, is not in doubt.

In the end, can mankind stave off the powerful and dark forces of utopian tyranny? While John Locke was surely right about man’s nature and the civil society, he was also right about that which threatens them. Locke, Montesquieu, many of the philosophers of the European Enlightenment, and the Founders, among others, knew that the history of organized government is mostly a history of a relative few and perfidious men co-opting, coercing, and eventually repressing the many through the centralization and consolidation of authority.

Ironically and tragically, it seems that liberty and the constitution established to preserve it are not only essential to the individual’s well-being and happiness, but also an opportunity for the devious to exploit them and connive against them. Man has yet to devise a lasting institutional answer to this puzzle. The best that can be said is that all that really stands between the individual and tyranny is a resolute and sober people. It is the people, after all, around whom the civil society has grown and governmental institutions have been established. At last, the people are responsible for upholding the civil society and republican government, to which their fate is moored.

The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?

No society is guaranteed perpetual existence. But I have to believe that the American people are not ready for servitude, for if this is our destiny, and the destiny of our children, I cannot conceive that any people, now or in the future, will successfully resist it for long. I have to believe that this generation of Americans will not condemn future generations to centuries of misery and darkness.

The Tea Party movement is a hopeful sign. Its members come from all walks of life and every corner of the country. These citizens have the spirit and enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers, proclaim the principles of individual liberty and rights in the Declaration, and insist on the federal government’s compliance with the Constitution’s limits. This explains the utopian fury against them. They are astutely aware of the peril of the moment. But there are also the Pollyannas and blissfully indifferent citizens who must be roused and enlisted lest the civil society continue to unravel and eventually dissolve, and the despotism long feared take firm hold.

Upon taking the oath of office on January 20, 1981, in his first inaugural address President Ronald Reagan told the American people:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.


Read more in Ameritopia, by Mark Levin

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Monday, September 02, 2013

Inside the Muslim Recruiting Station on Lackland Air Force Base, TX

Guest post by Dave Gaubatz


A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to visit the Islamic Center of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. The research findings were typical of most Sunni mosques around America. This is a Salafist (Wahabi) mosque. Inside were the typical violent materials such as Fiqh Us Sunnan, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Riyadh Al Salheen, and more.

The research findings were not a surprise since I have seen this type mosque hundreds of times during my research. What was interesting is the Islamic Center is near Lackland AFB. This is one of the U.S. Military largest training bases. All USAF personnel must conduct their initial training on this base. Here is what I discovered:

1. The Imam is Yousef Said, Ph D. Most of the worshippers are from Pakistan/Sunni-Salafist.

2. They had all the materials that identify them as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. Very strict Sharia adherence. Many of the young girls were completely veiled.

4. The Center has a strong security team on the grounds 24 hours a day.

5. I met several men, the Imam, custodians, and their head of security.

6. The Islamic Center is closely linked to Masjid Beit El Magdes, 7627 Culebra Rd., San Antonio. They are also behind the Mosque on Lackland AFB. A Brother Jeffrey is the Imam at the Lackland mosque. I was informed the new USAF recruits at Lackland must study Islam and attend the mosque on base. Brother Jeffrey has a goal of recruiting/converting at least 3 Airmen per week. Thus far they have had no problem doing this.

7. There were brochures of Imam Siraj Wahhaj coming to San Antonio on 8 June 2013. Remember I have always said Wahhaj is America’s most dangerous Islamic leader. The meeting is open for all and will be held at the Crossroads Mall Wonderland of America, 4522 Fredericksburg Rd, San Antonio, TX 7pm – 10pm.

8. A former U.S. military member Terry Holdbrooks assigned to GITMO was converted by three GITMO prisoners. Holdbrooks now speaks at mosques. He was in San Antonio on 24 May 2013.

9. The Islamic Center has close ties with CAIR National.

The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention

Guest post by Rob Natelson


The Founders bequeathed Americans a method to bypass the federal government and amend the Constitution, empowering two thirds of the states to call an Amendments Convention. In the wake of Mark Levin's bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, proposing just such a convention, entirely unnecessary alarms have been raised by even some of the leading lights of conservatism, based on an incomplete reading of history and judicial case law.

Phyllis Schlafly is a great American and a great leader, but her speculations about the nature of the Constitution's"convention for proposing amendments" are nearly as quaint as Dante's speculations about the solar system. Those speculations simply overlook the last two decades of research into the background and subsequent history of the Constitution's amendment process. They also ignore how that process actually has worked, and how the courts elucidate it.

The Founders provided, in Article V of the Constitution, for a "convention for proposing amendments." They did this to enable the people, acting through their state legislatures, to rein in an abusive or runaway federal government. In other words, the Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situation we face now.

Mrs. Schlafly doesn't think we know much else about the process. She writes, "Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess."

But she's wrong. There is no need to guess. We now know that:

The "convention for proposing amendments" was consciously modeled on federal conventions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention, when states or colonies met together on average about every 40 months. These were meetings of separate governments, and their protocols were based on international practice. Those protocols were well-established and are inherent in Article V.

Each federal convention has been called to address one or more discrete, prescribed problems. A convention "call" cannot determine how many delegates ("commissioners") each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide.

A convention for proposing amendments is a meeting of sovereignties or semi-sovereignties, and each state has one vote. Each state commissioner is empowered and instructed by his or her state legislature or its designee.

As was true of earlier interstate gatherings, the convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solutions to discrete, pre-assigned problems. There is no record of any federal convention significantly exceeding its pre-assigned mandate -- not even the Constitutional Convention, despite erroneous claims to the contrary.

The state legislatures' applications fix the subject-matter for a convention for proposing amendments. When two-thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the convention. However, the congressional call is limited to the time and place of meeting, and to reciting the state-determined subject.

In the unlikely event that the convention strays from its prescribed agenda (and the commissioners escape recall), any "proposal" they issue is ultra vires ("beyond powers") and void. Congress may not choose a "mode of ratification," and the necessary three-quarters of the states would not ratify it in any event.

Contrary to Mrs. Schlafly's claim that "Article V doesn't give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen," the courts can and do adjudicate Article V cases. There has been a long line of those cases from 1798 into the 21st century.

 "But," you might ask, "Will the prescribed convention procedures actually work?"

They already have. In 1861, in an effort to prevent the Civil War, a convention of the states was called to propose a constitutional amendment to Congress. Congress subsequently deadlocked over the amendment, but the convention did everything right: It followed all the protocols listed above, and it produced a compromise amendment. Although the convention met in a time of enormous stress, this "dry run" came off well, with none of Mrs. Schlafy's speculative "horribles."

In any political procedure, there are always uncertainties, but in this case they are far fewer than predicted by anti-convention alarmists. And they must be balanced against a certainty: Unless we use the procedure the Founders gave us to rein in a "runaway" Congress, then Congress will surely continue to run away.



Rob Natelson, Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana, taught constitutional law and constitutional history, and currently serves as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute. He is a widely-published scholar on the Constitution and on the amendment procedure, and several Supreme Court opinions have relied on his work. For his biography and bibliography, see http://constitution.i2i.org.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

This is Not the War We've Been Waiting For

Guest post by Dan from New York


Remember "the mother of all battles?" It's easy to dismiss the primitive war cries coming from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria as the same schoolyard hyperbole we get every time the USA and the West take aim at the Islamic world. We've become inured to the empty threats, but listen up. This time will be different.

It won't be 1991 when Bush The Elder successfully blocked the Israelis from responding to Saddam's hapless Scud missiles. Today's Israel - even one led by Obama's cat's-paw, Benjamin Netanyahu – is in no mood for that. If the Islamics insist on hitting Israel with reprisal attacks, Israel will likely respond with disproportional force, and a furious multi-front exchange of unknown duration would ensue.

We certainly don't hear that grim possibility reported or "analyzed" by the Obama-controlled media. But folks, look around the room. That's the war we should all be worried about.

The Daily Star (Lebanon), 8/31/13

Israel faces retaliation if U.S. attacks Syria: Iran military


BEIRUT: Israel will face retaliation if the United States launches a military strike against Syria, a senior Iranian military official warned, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Saturday.

“Israel will be hit by retaliatory attacks if the United States launches an offensive on Syria since it [the Jewish state] is the first instigator in attacking [Syria],” Iranian Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said.

Iran staunchly backs the regime in Damascus and is Hezbollah’s leading supporter in the region.

Firouzabadi accused Israel of spearheading efforts to drag Washington into a war with the government in Damascus.

The U.S. has stepped up its war rhetoric against Damascus after accusing President Bashar Assad’s regime of using chemical weapons earlier this month against opposition strongholds outside Damascus.

Editor's note: I've placed an All Points Bulletin for the oft-used term of yesteryear: chickenhawk:


Thursday, August 29, 2013

RED LINES, INDEED: Obama to provide air support for Al Qaeda and Ambassador Chris Stevens' killers in Syria?

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Mideast: The same al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia that killed four Americans in Benghazi is now training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels. Are we about to provide them air support?

On Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack, according to emails reaching the White House and the State Department.

Ambassador Stevens did not survive, nor did Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods, all killed by the terrorists of Ansar al-Sharia and other groups whose training camps surrounded Benghazi and were ignored by an oblivious Obama administration that now calls the scandal "phony."

Well, phony scandals do not produce body bags.

President Obama promised to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, which he has not. Ansar al-Sharia roams free. Ali Ani al-Harzi, a leading suspect in the attack and a member of Ansar al-Sharia who was taken into custody after fleeing Libya for Turkey and then sent to Tunisia, is also free.

"Make no mistake," President Obama told reporters the morning after the attack, "we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

Well, not exactly. Fellow suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala was tracked down by the New York Times and found to be peacefully enjoying a strawberry frappe at a luxury Tunisian hotel.