-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 101 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Special Report
Political Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Heroic officials willing are defending our Constitution and rule of law. But what about the rest?
(Page 2 of 2)
While each of the sheriffs’ statements above was within the context of protecting the particular right most obviously under assault today, they also stand alone as basic operating principles fundamental to America’s retaining its character as a republic conceived in liberty, a character that is not a quaint accident of history but based on our Founders’ deep understanding of human nature. Our national character, including both freedom and federalism, is the cause of American Exceptionalism (which Obama does not believe in). Our national character is our national immunity to tyranny.
Barack Obama and his allies are working to destroy that immunity, just as HIV/AIDS does to a human body, opening the flood gates for a fast-spreading cancer of the rule of men rather than of laws, of socialism (or socialism-lite) rather than free enterprise, of beggar-thy-neighbor sloth rather than the vigor of self-sufficiency, of subservience rather than liberty. The patient, our once-great nation, is already symptomatic.
Taking away gun rights has historically been the first step of tyrants on the path toward taking away all important rights. In addition to the practical impact of various “gun control” measures on law-abiding Americans’ ability to defend our homes and property, the left’s assault on the Second Amendment should be seen as part of a much larger attack: the attempted murder of America as the freest nation in human history.
Garfield County, Colorado Sheriff Lou Vallario put it well: “[T]he intentional degradation of the Second Amendment, for some radical factions, is NOT about safety or guns, but about eliminating our rights and controlling the population. I have no doubt that success with eliminating the Second Amendment will only fuel the fire of such radicals to eliminate the remaining ones.”
What is implied by the sheriffs’ positions — and what needs to be made explicit to all Americans, particularly those who take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — is that public officials have not just a right but a responsibility to consider the constitutionality of a law or an order, at least until a court has had the final say. As with medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The abandonment of this responsibility is one of the greatest failures of politicians generally and Republicans specifically, turning many into unwitting collaborators in the destruction of our nation. These useful idiots exist at all levels of government, from former President George W. Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill despite repeatedly recognizing “constitutional concerns” to local politicians like Larimer County Commissioner Steve Johnson.
When asked about Sheriff Smith’s refusal to enforce unconstitutional (as he sees them) laws and edicts, Johnson said, “Last time I checked in my civics class, the only ones that could rule a law unconstitutional sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Johnson, while a state senator, was the leading GOP legislative sponsor of the largest tax increase in Colorado history and has long been an econometric. (With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?) But overtaxing, while at least temporarily harmful to our nation and locales, pales in comparison to the permanent damage done when people like Steve Johnson have neither the courage nor the wisdom to understand that their oaths of office require them to defend citizens’ rights.
A sheriff or a county commissioner might not technically “rule” on a law or order, but they can — indeed they must — consider its constitutionality. Given that courts rule on the constitutionality of only a small minority of laws, and that even in those cases a final ruling may not occur for months or years after a law or order is imposed, public officials have an affirmative responsibility to make their own determinations. Indeed, the lack of court action, much less timely action, regarding most laws, and the increasing partisanship of the judiciary at the expense of the rule of law, makes the judgment of others sworn to uphold the Constitution that much more critical.
Imagine a nurse saying “I think what you’re doing will make you sick, but I’m not going to suggest that you stop. Instead let’s wait to see if you become extremely, perhaps terminally, ill.” That would be a dereliction of duty so severe nobody would allow, or even conceive of it, particularly not most nurses. But that is just what so many of our politicians — sworn to protect and defend the Constitution — do every day by refusing to take a stand when presented with unconstitutional orders.
Whether willful collaborators or simply ignorant, spineless and clueless politicians such as Steve Johnson should not be tolerated. They are a political HIV virus, destroying our national immune system alongside people like Nancy Pelosi who respond to questions about constitutionality by asking “are you serious” as they wait for the opportunity to inject the body politic of a once-mostly-free nation with a final, fatal disease.
Sheriffs across the nation, not least in a wave sweeping Colorado, are to be thanked and congratulated for awakening Americans to the idea that the oath of office is not made of idle words, but of a solemn vow whose abandonment — leading to the political equivalent of full-blown AIDS, allowing a scourge of disease to enter a defenseless body — has terrible, permanent consequences.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/23/political-immune-deficiency-sy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 1.23.13 @ 6:29AM
Rand Paul has called out House Republicans for surrendering on the debt ceiling....Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh agree with Sen. Paul...House Republicans are too afraid of Obama to do their job.
Washington DC is now a Dead Zone.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 7:21AM
Trump, Limbaugh, and Paul think the House Republicans’ role is to default on Reagan/Bush debt sending the financial world into chaos?
Sean| 1.23.13 @ 7:39AM
No they believe that we should cut spending so there is no default. You can't default to welfare queens.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 8:00AM
The debt ceiling is about spent not spending.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 8:21AM
Stupid Communist vtwin: I'll agree to raise the debt limit if you'll agree to reduce future spending.
Even so, there is no danger of a default on the payment of debt by the federal government. There is adequate revenue to pay current obligations to bond holders (interest), the military, social security recipients, federal workers, etc. However, there is not enough revenue to pay for pork projects, duplicate programs, waste and fraud; nor is there enough future revenue to pay for unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs.
If you disagree, and I know you will, then will you please provide a plan for preventing national bankruptcy.
Al Adab| 1.23.13 @ 8:27AM
Thanks Pete, raising the limit is exactly the same as raising the credit line on ones Visa card. Works OK as long as one quits adding to the debt load and pays down on principle. Problem is our government intends to keep borrowing to fund their vote buying programs and redistribute the property and wealth of citizens.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 8:42AM
Boehner has already agreed to increase the debt ceiling. You got anything else?
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 9:12AM
Stupid Communist vtwin: That's your plan? You agree with the hated republicans and that's your plan? Stuck on Stupid.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:31AM
Relax Pete, as the economy has recovered from the Bush Depression the deficits have come down.
2009 $1,413 billion
2010 $1,293 billion
2011 $1,300 billion
2012 $1,089 billion
2013 $901 billion (projected)
Besides, “Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.” --Dick Cheney
George S| 1.23.13 @ 9:52AM
The 2012 deficit was $1.33 trillion... are you getting your numbers from the BEA historical data? Those are projections after FY2011.
Since you are using that data, fill in the following:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007:
2008:
The reason you do not is you know very well that those years the deficit averages a whole trillion dollars less.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:00AM
I was quoting deficits numbers from:
http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....chart.html
Where did you get the 2012/$1.33 trillion number?
Jacob McCandles| 1.23.13 @ 10:41AM
you idiot. These numbers are available all over the internet. Don't worry kid. You like Obama, were only off by a trillion or two.
Al Adab| 1.23.13 @ 11:02AM
My question is why those like vtwin think we believe policy errors to be acceptable just because a republican might propose or accept them? Conservatives have opposed republicans, Bush budgets included, as much as not. Unlike our leftist friends, we do not worship every word from a politicians mouth as though it came from Olympus. Vtwin mistakes us for himself.
Doctor Right| 1.23.13 @ 12:45PM
...a mere rounding error...
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 11:03AM
You didn't even bother to read this from your link did you?
"That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. "
Or follow the link provided that has this tidbit
"As the Federal Reserve carefully notes in its “Flow of Funds” report, non-budget agency and GSE debt is not “considered officially to be part of the total debt of the federal government.”
Not “considered officially,” as they say—but what is it really? It puts the federal budget at risk, subjecting it to uncertainty of defaults. It has proven its ability to generate huge losses for the taxpayers. In other words, it is really, if not “officially,” government debt."
http://american.com/archive/20.....experiment
Deficits may not matter but goverment debt sure does, and we are in way over our head.
TLP| 1.23.13 @ 1:06PM
And by: GSE, they mean FANNIE and FREDDIE, which means that these numbers aren't even close to the Real Numbers.
Are you surprised?
vtwin's like that girl on the Commercial with the Date with the French Model that she met on the Internet.
"Bon Jor".
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 7:50AM
Obama has run up more debt in 4 years than GW Bush did in 8. You libtards are either horrible at basic math or are like your brethren in the old Soviet Union just simply outright liars. Stalin said, "There is no truth other than the truth that forwards the goals of the party". American left was obviously listening.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 7:58AM
Without the Bush Depression, the Bush tax-cuts, and the Bush Wars there wouldn’t be any deficit today.
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:10AM
And a GOPer would still be president. Though you ignore the fact that Obama raised spending to 24% of GDP. That would have wiped out the Clinton surpluses and created about a $200b deficit even then. As for Bush's wars a revionist America hating leftist like yourself needs to be reminded that the USA didnt start the Afghan war any more tha FDR started WW2. The afghan war is a NATO mission endorsed by the UN and all but 1 member of congress.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 8:34AM
Wrong again, Obama didn’t increase spending as a percentage of GDP Bush lowered the GDP nearly 4%.
I noticed you ignored the Bush-Iraq War.
Jacob McCandles| 1.23.13 @ 8:40AM
Defense spending is great. Defense systems, body armor, MREs etc are all made here in the great US of A! They all help create Biden's 3 letter word: J-O-B-S. Your pathetic, wasteful welfare spending goes to lottery tickets, cigarrettes, and malt liquor. Right down the shi----er.
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:44AM
Moron. Under Obama spending rose from 22% of GDP in 2008 to 25% of GDP by 2010. It has fallen to 24% of GDP for 2012. Like I said leftists are blatant liars. Under Clinton in 2000, tax revenues hit a post WW2 record at 22% of GDP. So Obama spending levels with Clinton tax revenues would today give us roughly a 300-350 billion deficit.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 8:54AM
Again, you ignore the fact that GDP fell 4% during the Bush depression.
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:56AM
GDP has recovered to 2007 levels yet spending is still at 24% of GDP. Govt spending has risen faster than GDP since 2008.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:18AM
If GDP has completely recovered form the Bush Depression why is unemployment still 7.8%?
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 10:08AM
Nitwit. Productivity. It takes far fewer workers to produce 2007's output today than it did in 2007. BTW the makeup of GDP is not the same. There is less Fixed Residential Investment (Housing) and fewer cars being sold (17m in 2007 maybe 15m in 2013) but More govt and smaller trade deficit.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 8:46AM
The Iraq and Afghan wars were authorized by Congress, including most Dems such as Hillary. Obama expanded the Afghan war, plus spent on unauthorized military actions in Libya and central Africa.
Obama has added over 5 trillion in debt, and there are over 8 million fewer employed than under the evil Bush.
Obama's economic stimulus was/is a fancy term for spending money we do not have, and giving it to favored voting groups and contributors like Solyndra. Did zero for the economy.
Michele has helped the economies of Spain and Mexico with our tax funded vacations. The only stimulus to the economy from O is the purchase of golf clubs, golf balls, and basketballs for him play while the economy stagnates.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:00AM
Bush inherited surpluses and left OMB projected annual deficits of $1.3 trillion. Projected weeks before Obama took Office.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 9:19AM
Stupid Communist vtwin: I notice that you are ignoring the 8 million fewer employed than under Bush. What's your plan? What's your messiah's plan to put these people back to work? Green energy, you say? We've been wasting money on green energy for 4 years and managed to increase unemployment. Do you have any other fairy dust solutions? What's your plan?
Stuck on Stupid.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 9:26AM
There was a deficit, you are confusing the balanced budge with the debt deficit. This is a perfect example of the Dem voter that does not know the facts, such as who authorized the wars, and the difference between the budget and debt deficit.
The budget was balanced with Clinton being forced to agree with Newt and the Rep House. Clinton agreed only upon the advice of Dick Morris so he would be re-elected.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:39AM
CJW, I think what you are trying to say is; I don’t know the different between annual budget deficits and the accumulated nation debt?
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:41AM
oops, national
KennesawJack| 1.23.13 @ 10:01AM
vtwn, you repeatedly refer to Bush's wars. Question. What would you have had the President (assuming, for a moment, it was Obamarx) of the United States do after 9/11?
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:13AM
What Obama did, GET Bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 10:25AM
Stupid Communist vtwin: King O got al Qaeda? Tell that to the 37 dead, not counting the peaceful religion al Qaeda murderers, in Algeria.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 12:21PM
And further to Stupid Communist vtwin: From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today, under oath in testimony before Congress:
"We now face a spreading jihadist threat," Clinton said. "Many al-Qaeda operatives have been driven out of Afghanistan and Pakistan," she said. But she added: "We have to recognize this is a global movement."
So, tell us again Stupid Communist vtwin, that "Obama did, GET Bil Laden and al Qaeda."
Stuck on Stupid.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 10:34AM
vtwin,
Obama was playing golf when the Seals got Osama. They had to drag him in from the golf course to watch it for the photo op. Obama had as much to do with killing Osama as you did. The intelligence was gathered by our professionals based on leads produced throught the interrogation that was opposed by Obama and his band of lefties. The actual operation was done by the military that is routinely disparaged by you lefties.
KennesawJack| 1.23.13 @ 12:13PM
Seal Team 6 "got" Bin Laden and someone forgot to tell Ambassador Stephens that Obamarx "got" Al Qaeda. Oh! Someone forgot to tell Al Qaeda, too.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 10:30AM
vtwin, you got half of it right, I am saying you do not know the differnce between the budget and the total deficit. Are you saying there was a zero deficit when the evil Bush became Pres? We now have over 16 trillion in debt, Bush contributed five in 8 years, and Obama did 5 in 4 years. Get it?
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 11:13AM
When Bush took office the national debt was about $5 trillion what Bush inherited form Clinton was project annual surpluses or projected budget surpluses. But the truth is these projected surpluses were not real surpluses because the U.S Treasury was still spending more than it was taking in tax revenues and using Social Security and Medicare tax revenues to mask the shortfall. A budgetary gimmick first used first during the Reagan Administration to hide growing national debt.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 11:34AM
vtwin
I agree with you that Bubba cooked the books. What else is new. Bubba lied. I am shocked, shocked.
George S| 1.23.13 @ 10:00AM
Bush left a $450 bn deficit. You cannot leave a "projected" deficit.
Obama spent 787 billion on stimulus plus another 500 billion on TARP. You cannot credit that to GWB's FY 2009 budget because those items WERE NOT IN THAT BUDGET. That is like saying Clinton "budgeted" for the Bush Wars despite the fact that Bush spent it.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:22AM
No, Bush incurred a $450 deficit in 2008 and left an OMB projected (based on revenues expected and spending ALREADY in law) deficit of $1.3 trillion for 2009.
If by The TARP you mean Troubled Asset Relief Program it was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. Too much Fox "News?"
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 10:15AM
This comment is typical of leftist thinking that 9-11-2001 was no big deal. It was Bush's war and it had no impact on the economy. Here's new genius. Gore wins, we go to war in Afghanistan and Gore signs the GOP congress tax cut.
Doctor Right| 1.23.13 @ 12:47PM
"The Bush Depression!"
LOL!!!!
Yeah, it's all Bush's fault! I guess the full-employment (
TLP| 1.23.13 @ 3:07PM
Apparently, Doctor Jjackass suffered a Stroke, Mid Inanity.
Thank God.
TLP| 1.23.13 @ 3:07PM
Crap.
Gregory | 1.23.13 @ 10:05AM
All experts know that the Feds have enough revenue every month to pay the current interest on the debt. The "default" argument is a lie. Serious cutbacks will be required, but the U.S. won't have to default. Do you think the rating agencies won't downgrade us for what's happening now? At present spending levels, a disaster is inevitable.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:38AM
No, the "default" argument is a real. The previous Congress has set this spending into law to change it the new Congress would have to change the law needing the President to sign it. Now, ain't that a bitch?
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 12:00PM
So with your logic, the Democrat controlled congress passed laws to ramp up spending and now you want to ramp up the debt ceiling to pay for what should have already been paid for? Rember that whole PAYGO that Nancy promised and never followed through on?
Then you want to blame bush's deficits on Bush, when it was caused by a Dem controlled congress, yet give Obama a pass on his deficits caused by a Dem controlled congress?
You can't have it both ways.
Doctor Right| 1.23.13 @ 12:48PM
...Only Purp can do that...
Al Adab| 1.23.13 @ 1:21PM
Purp at least gives us an insight into the groupthink mind of true believers. Vtwin on the other hand is simply an ankle biter Chihuahua. Both manage to take up a lot of space without contributing much positive to the discussion. In fact, they tend to divert it through personal attacks and vitriol.
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 1:49PM
Now that you mention it, he does remind me of a little yapper.
Aristocat| 1.23.13 @ 9:08PM
Just because the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional or unConstitutional does not make it so. The Supreme Court makes unConstitutional rulings all the time...In fact, a majority of their opinions are unConstitutional.
Gary B| 1.23.13 @ 7:11AM
"Across the nation, sheriffs are stating publicly that they will not enforce what they believe to be unconstitutional edicts from the White House infringing on Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
"We’ve heard it in Minnesota, Arizona, Oregon, California, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Colorado (at least four sheriffs in my home state), and from an ever-growing list of sheriffs from East to West and North to South."
Here's the problem with these sheriffs... every single one of them gives his full support to the unconstitutional War on Drugs. These same guys will kick in your door at 3am and gun down your entire family. Next chance you get, ask them about that.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 8:26AM
Wrong! "These same guys will kick in your door at 3am and gun down your entire family." Wrong!
It is the feds that kick in doors and threaten citizens be they family or businesses. It is the feds that put up roadblocks, search trains, buses and planes.
The Sheriffs are not the problem, it is the federal law enforcement organizations that are the problem.
Gary B| 1.23.13 @ 11:33AM
Pete,
Yes, the feds kick in the door. So do sheriff and police SWAT teams. I want to hear a sheriff stand up to the feds on drug raids. You can't tell me a no-knock warrant is constitutional. It's an illegal, unconstitutional, unnecessary show of force.
One state (can't remember which one) introduced legislation allowing a home owner to shoot back at anyone who comes busting through their door, included trigger happy, dumb-ass cops. Needless to say, the cops weren't happy about that. Maybe if a few cops were charged with murder it would get their attention. One of the unfortunate consequences of rogue police actions is it gives good cops a very bad name.
Gary B| 1.23.13 @ 11:36AM
Sheriffs need to tell the feds to keep their money and get the hell out. The prospect of getting all that really neat military gear is just too tempting for an empire-building sheriff. It's bribery. Take a look at the Military Channel to see what coming to a sheriff substation near you.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 12:25PM
Gary: Good answer. Local governments should never take federal money. At the same time, I am more concerned with federal agents than I am with local Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:30AM
You may indeed have a point. However the War On Drugs has a huge financial incentive for local law enforcement. Guns, as of yet don't.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 8:48AM
Good point with drug legalization breaking out everywhere the police-court-prison complex is going to need something to keep it going.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 9:23AM
Stupid Communist vtwin: You'd be happy with complete drug use freedom. Whatever feels good, is good. You'd be happy when the "courts" are putting conservatives in prison for not agreeing with you and your ilk.
Stuck on Stupid.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 9:54AM
I don’t advocate the use of drugs but I do think the War on Drugs is not only a waste of money but it causes more harm to our society than good.
And, no I wouldn’t be “happy” with conservatives or anyone else being imprisoned for their beliefs or expressing their beliefs. Maybe you are experiencing a Glenn-Beck overdose.
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 7:57AM
The American left wants nothing more than to over turn the American Revolution. They believe that the creation of the USA was the singke greatest tragedy in human history.
If this is how the totalitarian left behaves after they won the 3rd closet reelection in history, imagine their behavior if they win a landslide. They are drunk on the notion of a permanent leftist majority despite the fact Obamugabe barely won a popular majority greater than GW Bush in 2004. The American left is evil and totalitarian. The time will come when elections no longer matter. Then we can finally be liberated from the notion of winning public support and let the reckoning begin.
Al Adab| 1.23.13 @ 8:24AM
So it has come to this. Now we see elected law enforcement officers having to take a public stand against the massive overreach of federal officials proposing laws and actions in violation of the law itself.
Meanwhile the public is left in a position of having to choose which path individuals will follow. Do we bow down to tyranny or stand at the bridge against those who would deprive us of our long protected rights, rights we hold not from government but by virtue of our humanity itself?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.23.13 @ 8:26AM
Among the many ironies of the current debate is that while many of the sheriffs detailed in the article are announcing that they won’t enforce unconstitutional federal laws violating the second amendment, the same usurping Obama administration spent a part of its last term suing state and local jurisdictions because they were enforcing constitutional immigration laws, in the absence of federal action.
Jacob McCandles| 1.23.13 @ 8:47AM
Great observation ACJ.
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 11:49AM
Pa has a detailed statue dealing with the carry permits. There is a long list of convictions of crimes and other factors that will disqualify.
I bought a 38 for my daugher and the background check took minutes. The store was packed with buyers. She was impressed that the customers were all so friendly, courteous, and helpful.
While we were looking and waiting, several customers told her their opinions of the best guns that they bought for their wives and daughters, and the best places for training. She spent seven years at college and law school hearing the lefty horror opinions about the bitter clinging gun owners. When she met actual lawful gun owners she realized the BS from the lefties about gun owners.
Indy| 1.23.13 @ 8:43AM
Patterico put together a simple view of our fiscal mess. It won't end well, see for yourself, charts, video utilizing real data from POTUS Budget. The GOP establishment doesn't have the courage to take this on and the Leftist media is fused with this Administration, they are failing the American people...the media doesn't care, not all of them will be allowed on the ruling class boat, some will end up with the commoners and wake up too late in the game.
http://patterico.com/2013/01/2.....nderstand/
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:59AM
Just wait until interest rates rise. If rates go to just 5%, the budget deficit will grow by an additional trillion per year. This will all come crashing down either at the end if obamas term or the next president.
Indy| 1.23.13 @ 9:10AM
Exactly and the GOP fails to effectively point that out, they have the wrong messengers. The Fed did the job POTUS wanted, they carried him through the election so now he will exercise "flexibility" brace for impact. The Fed has nothing left in the toolbox, they have played the public and the impact will be felt globally. Who do you think other countries will blame? Do you think the Chinese will as for nothing in return for the US debt they hold?
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 9:25AM
Gob & Indy: Exactly. Even a small increase in the interest rate will be a disaster. The feds only solution is to print more money. Inflate the debt away.
Indy| 1.23.13 @ 9:49AM
Doug Ross had a great post explaining the history of Argentina and what happened when inflation hit after entitlement spending increased. Is Obama our Peron? Know history...
http://directorblue.blogspot.c.....erica.html
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 10:04AM
Obama maybe our Peron. At the very very least he is Pierre Elliot Turdeau
Maxwell| 1.23.13 @ 9:39AM
Indy, you answered my question that I had been thinking about not only for some time but this morning too. With the link you provided and one poster in the comments section, just how much longer can we continue on this path? When will the house of cards FINALLY come down? Sad to say, this ain't rocket science. No one can continue to spend more than they take in w/o saying, the jig is up, we are cooked. I wonder when that will happen here?
Indy| 1.23.13 @ 9:53AM
"this ain't rocket science" - you are spot on, it's math. Sen. Coburn points that out -
"Tom Coburn warned the MSNBC panel about the lack of progress on addressing entitlement reform. “The Medicare Part A trust fund will be out of money in five years. Social Security disability will be out of money in 18 months,” Coburn said. “It doesn’t matter what mode [Obama's] in. It doesn’t matter what mode the Republicans are in. There’s a power greater than both of them: it’s called math.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ew-johnson
GobBluthe| 1.23.13 @ 8:50AM
When feckless Romneyite Ross Kaminsky become a radical, we are on to something. The left will over reach on guns and taxes. But thanks to all the immigrants and Generation Y morons, it is not clear where that line lies. In 1994, it was. What we do know is the left will push towards totalitarianism until they are kicked in the head. But at what point the brainwashed 25 year old and the Mexican immigrant push back is far from clear.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:51AM
Obama plays chess not checkers so he is not going after you guns he is exposing the Republicans as once again extreme.
mike 3/505| 1.23.13 @ 9:06AM
But at what point the brainwashed 25 year old and the Mexican immigrant push back is far from clear.
The brainwashed 25 year-old can't even change a flat. What makes you think he has the juice to push back on anything?
Anthony| 1.23.13 @ 9:49AM
Our R leadership, such as it is, has taken a lesson from Obozo, lead from behind.
These eunuchs will cower in the weeds until somebody steps up and finally pushes back against Obozo and the radical left.
We truly need a leader with brass balls; Sarah, it's time to step up and kick our cowering leaders in the ass and take charge.
And then, do a number on the Muslim Marxist and his gang of trolls, just like you did to Biteme in the debate.
Looks like a job for Super Woman. The left, and their whores in the media, may think they have done you in, but they are blinded by their own myopia.
Oh, and your first act should be to beat the crap out of that fat bald bastard, Steve Schmidt.
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 10:43AM
Look I miss Sarah too but she is never going to see the inside of the White House unless some President invites her in for a quick blowjob.
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 12:05PM
So much for Liberal civility huh Vtwin. You're pathetic.
atilla| 1.23.13 @ 12:06PM
SHAME ON YOU VTWIN....HE'LL CALL YOUR MOMMA
vtwin| 1.23.13 @ 2:15PM
Sorry, if I offended. When I read Sarah I don’t think President I think sex. I mean really, when it comes to sexual appeal does anyone from the political realm rate as high as Sarah? I don’t think so, not even close. If you have to spend eternity in hell for fornicating with a politician who is it going to be, Sarah right?
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 2:29PM
Nice try. Tap dancing is not your gig. You shoved your dog shit covered foot in your liberal, tolerance preaching, mouth. Enjoy the taste
Doctor Right| 1.23.13 @ 12:50PM
Well it won't be Obama...word is, he prefers that kinda' thing from other guys.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 2:34PM
Only in the demented minds of right wing bloggers ....
TLP| 1.23.13 @ 1:14PM
I wonder what would happen if I said what vtwin just said, using Michelle Obama, instead of Sarah Palin?
Anybody wanna guess?
Maxwell| 1.23.13 @ 1:17PM
Probably the ban hammer would have hit you
Indy| 1.23.13 @ 2:55PM
The yelling would commence about the "War on Women"
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 3:05PM
Peta and ASPCA would come after you. Beastiality is a ugly thing.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 6:15PM
Ooooooooooh!
CJW| 1.23.13 @ 4:18PM
vtwin
I am disappointed. I was ready to post you are civil, unlike the Village Idiot. You need to apologize.
cicero| 1.23.13 @ 11:35AM
We get all in a knot about the 2d Amendment, but do not get similarly exorcised when other rights are trampled on or usurped. One of the overriding problems was created by Chief Justice Marshall and his Marbury v Madison opinion. While it stated that the Supremes court could rule a law unconstitutional, no where did it say that the Supremes could make up their own legislation. Such unconstitutional actions have given us a nightmare government. Over the years the Supremes and most State courts have moved from Law to Equity, allowing the judicial branch to become the most powerful of the three. Now, each judge is a Solomon, making rulings on how he/she thinks things should be, without benefit of statutory law.
I think that the sheriffs have it right. This may be the most important states' rights fight in the history of this country, at least since 1861. If the states refuse to enforce, or allow enforcement of, unconsstitutional edicts, I do not see anyone in the current National Guard lining up against the citizens of their states. I further do not see anyone in the regualr army, not named Nidal, taking such a stand. We shall see. It will be interesting.
atilla| 1.23.13 @ 12:05PM
As so many of our citizens(?? ) have declared that the Constitution does not say what it says and sadly so many of them are believed BY THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT HAVE SWORN TO PROTECT AND DEFEND IT......NO WAY TO LEAD.....I say why don't the rest of us who believe that the Constitution means exactly what it says take those God given rights at face value and enjoy them WITHOUT the burdens that the left has put on them over the years?
SOMEONE ONCE SAID...."THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MY LICENSE TO CARRY"
I AGREE, WADDAYA THINK??
mike 3/505| 1.23.13 @ 12:07PM
I think, you might be a skosh more effective, if you would use capitalization a little more sparingly.
Regards,
Mike
Jim Adcox| 1.23.13 @ 12:48PM
It's not "PIDS." It's "Puds." And they are pulling theirs, and they want to pull ours.
Ronsch| 1.23.13 @ 1:21PM
Hey Ross,
Thanks for pissing off the L-S-D (Liberal-Socialist-Democrat) trolls here this morning!
Btw, one 0f our State Representatives here in Alaska introduced a bill to make violations of the Constitution illegal and if a fed attempts it, they can be arrested...Sad that a bill has to be introduced to do that.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 2:33PM
If a law violates the Constitution in a Republic, we ask the Court to declare it invalid. Trying to jail a federal officer for enforcing a federal law or federal regulation because some state official on his/her own tinks it's invalid violates .... The Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in our Constitution requires state officials to enforce federal laws and regulations no matter what state law says. Read the Federalist Papers and find out why our Framers insisted on that provision.
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 3:08PM
Tell that to Holder and Company that won't enforce laws on the books that Obama doesn't want them to enforce.
And if state officals are required to enforce federal laws why is this administratino suing many states for trying to uphold the Immigration law as it stands?
That's double speak even for a lawyer.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 3:46PM
No, they sued those states for trying to legislate in an area which the Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal government.
JD| 1.23.13 @ 4:49PM
No, they didn't. But I applaud your efforts to defend the indefensible.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 6:45PM
That's just not so, JD. The Arizona law had other problems as well, but the basic objection to all such state laws is the constitutional allocation of power over immigration and naturalization to the Federal, not state, governments, and the need for uniformity of national efforts on these subjects.
Drunken Sailor| 1.23.13 @ 4:51PM
You're right. I researched that further. But tell me this, why can the feds refuse to enforce federal laws but you think the states would have to enforce them? Specifically feds turn a blind eye to enforcing immigration and will not let the states do so but you expect them to enforce gun control?
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 6:43PM
In the first place, this administration has more effectively enforced immigration laws than any other -- deportations are higher now than ever.
Secondly, all enforcement agencies use discretion in judgment in how to enforce laws. They apply priorities in enforcement. This administration -- and wisely in my view -- has concentrated its enforcement efforts on deporting undocumented (illegal, if you prefer) aliens who have violated criminal laws, and not spending its limited resources going after immigrants who came here as children, are in school and are violating no laws.
Every prosecutorial agency in the nation makes decisions every day on whether to go forward with particular prosecutions based on the strength of the case, the liklihood of conviction, the enforcement priorities at the moment, etc.
Louis Jenkins| 1.23.13 @ 3:58PM
Having read several articles on whether or not to believe the rogue sheriffs, I tend to agree that it is a wait and see project. What happens if the guns do become unlawful, and all of a sudden we have millions of people who are now felons? Only time will tell. It sounds great at this time, but remember, the law enforcement departments have received billions in federal financial aid.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 6:18PM
There are simply too many guns in private hands to incarcerate all of those owning guns. Or to bring them to trial. If the War On Drugs is a pain in the butt for the courts, then imagine a War On Guns.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 6:46PM
No one is trying to "incarcerate all of those owning guns," but it's a great scare tactic for the NRA to raise money.
Pecos Pete| 1.23.13 @ 8:03PM
Wrong. You democrats want to outlaw guns. Period. Admit it.
RCV| 1.23.13 @ 9:50PM
No, not so.
JenniferSmithe22| 1.23.13 @ 8:54PM
If you think Luis`s story is super..., in the last-month my cousins boyfriend also actually earnt $8404 grafting twenty hours a week at home and they're classmate's step-aunt`s neighbour has been doing this for 7-months and errned over $8404 in there spare time on there labtop. applie the guide from this site, Fox76.comCHECK IT OUT
JenniferSmithe22| 1.23.13 @ 8:58PM
Harper. I see what you mean... Anita`s rep0rt is unimaginable, I just purchased a brand new Mitsubishi Evo after having earned $4497 this munth and in excess of 10k lass-month. it's by-far the most-rewarding I have ever done. I started this seven months/ago and practically straight away started making a cool minimum $71... p/h. I use the details on this website,Fox76.comCHECK IT OUT
hrgfue | 1.23.13 @ 10:57PM
2013 Happy New Year
FiddlerBob| 1.27.13 @ 12:39PM
It's nice to see more and more sheriffs coming on board with the Constitution. I would hope that they start arresting those responsible for the constant assaults on our Constitution by those sworn to protect and defend it. I would also hope that they start paying attention to the right of the people to have an eligible president. Mr. Obama is clearly not a natural born citizen and probably is not even a citizen. He has also presented documents that have been proven to have been forged, is using a social security number never issued to him, and is consistently acting in a manner contrary to his oath of office.
There is nothing more threatening to our nation, including an armed invasion, than to allow Mr. Obama, or any other usurper, to stay in office and to allow their enablers to continue with their insurrection unchallenged.