Entries in Liberal Fascism (96)


Eric Holder Reluctantly Admits POTUS Limited in Droning of Americans on USA

Yesterday Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, representing the Tea Party and Constitutional Libertarians, was finally able to get Attorney General Eric Holder to admit that it is unconstitutional to kill Americans on U.S. soil via a drone strike, if the American terror suspect does not pose an “imminent threat.”

After much bobbing and weaving Holder finally conceded that such a strike would not constitutional. It took Cruz close to four minutes to admit it.  The lame stream media, which is now the primary propaganda arm of the White House, refused to report this exchange.  This is further proof that following the New Media is the only way to keep from becoming a dangerous low information voter.

The colloquy was sparked by a letter Holder sent to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, on the subject which seemed to suggest otherwise. In the letter, Holder said:

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

Cruz took the opportunity of Holder’s appearance this morning before the senate Judiciary Committee to ask about the government stance. “If an individual is sitting quietly in a cafe in the US, in your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked, adding later the qualifier:  ”If that individual is not posing an imminent and immediate threat of death or bodily harm.”

Holder responded: “On the basis of what you said, I don’t think you can arrest that person.”

Cruz tried again: “If the person is suspected to be a terrorist,  you have abundant evidence that he is a terrorist and he is involved in terrorist plots but at the moment he is not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a cafe … does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?”

Holder began: “I would not think that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force. We would deal with that in a way we would typically deal with a situation like that…”

Cruz cut back in, pointing out  ”My question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question. ” He then reiterated his question. Holder again said that in that situation, “I would not think that in that situation use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate”.

Cruz then asked why Holder could not respond with a simple yes or no. They went back and forth again before an exasperated Holder finally responded: ” Translate my ‘appropriate’ to ‘no.’  I thought I was saying ‘no’.”

“That statement has not been easily forthcoming,” Cruz noted.

“Government money only pays for the liberties the government thinks you should have, and therefore it can determine how you exercise them. That turns liberties into privileges dispensed at the whim of the state.”
― Jonah Goldberg


We Stand with Rand in Demanding 5th Amendment Rights 

Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls hours-long, multi-senator filibuster of John Brennans CIA director nomination has accomplished a rare feat: questions about targeted killing and the drone program have vaulted from the fringes to the forefront of Washington conversation, and its lasted an entire day, going into the early hours of the next day.

You would hope that the question of whether the president can on his own authority kill citizens in the U.S. would have come to the forefront as soon as it was floated, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute. But it seems like it took this particular circumstance to get people talking about it.

Senator Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 a.m. Wednesday with the promise that I will speak until I can no longer speak. Over the course of the afternoon, several other Republican senators and one Democrat, Oregons Ron Wyden, have joined in the filibuster that has revolved around constitutional debate over whether or not the administration can use its authority to turn drones on U.S. citizens within U.S. territory.

What were seeing with the Brennan nomination is what has been so urgently needed for so long: Congress playing the role it was intended to play by impeding Executive Branch extremism and prioritizing, for once, its institutional responsibilities over trivial partisan loyalties, Everyone, regardless of party, has an equal interest in ensuring that the ability of the president to abuse power in secret is constrained. That this current battle is being led by members of both parties underscores that fact, and has the real potential to trigger a truly trans-partisan campaign against the presidential assault on core liberties being waged on a pretense of national security.

As of Midnight on Thursday, Senator Pauls filibuster was still in progress.

Che Guevara’s motto was “If in doubt, kill him,” and he killed a great many.


Reid Pushing to Confirm Gun Banner Halligan to Federal Appeals Court

Dirty Harry Reid is twisting arms to get support for one of the most anti-gun judicial nominees in recent memory.

Her name is Caitlin Halligan, and she has a long track record in favor of gun control.  She is the most “anti-Second Amendment nominee Obama has ever put forward.” 
As New York’s Solicitor General, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.
Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”
Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.
After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a legal brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.
Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.
Halligan’s failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes “fraud” against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant.
But, of course, none of this matters to Harry Reid. He and Obama are doing what they can to pack the Appeals Courts with radical gun banners.
Act now to stop this Reid/Obama liberal fascist federal appeals court nomination.  Reid is pushing hard for a vote on Halligan’s nomination this month.
ACTION:   Click here to contact and demand that your U.S. Senators oppose the Caitlin Halligan nomination to the DC Court of Appeals and support ALL efforts to filibuster her nomination.


Liberal Statists Seek to Fundamentally Change America

Any public official, elected or appointed, who either advocates for or attempts to restrict personal ownership of firearms is a domestic enemy of the Constitution. Former Navy CDR Matthew W. Shipley who graduated from Navy recruit training in January 1985, Naval Academy Preparatory School in 1987 and the United States Naval Academy in 1991, recently wrote in the Canada Free Press:

As part of gun control advocates’ mantra and a cornerstone of their argument, they claim citizens don’t need assault weapons to hunt or to defend themselves in their homes. Although, it is true citizens can do both of these things without modern sporting rifles, their claim misinterprets the intent of the Second Amendment and the right it was written to protect.

To understand why this claim completely misses the point of the Second Amendment, we must look at what the Second Amendment states and comprehend what it meant to those who wrote it. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

According to George Mason and many other founders, the Militia, to which the Second Amendment refers, consists of “the whole people, except a few public officials” and “of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” From this, it is important to understand that the Militia is the entire population of United States’ law abiding citizens. Obviously, in time of need, only able bodied male citizens would be expected to serve, but this does not restrict the right to bear arms to those who do not meet that description. Therefore, every law abiding citizen of the United States has a right to keep and bear arms without infringement from the national, State or local government, because it is a right bestowed by God derived from His commandment to honor life.

Obama is a statist who has promised to fundamentally change the United States of America.  When Biden and Obama tell you that they support the Second Amendment BUT we need common sense restrictions. This is where they are going. 

The federal government will allow citizens to own a double barrel Shotgun loaded with two rounds, or a handgun loaded with six rounds or less after you jump through numerous legal hoops.  You will be subject to high firearms and ammo taxes, extensive background checks and waiting periods, registeration of one legal firearm that you may own after waiving your Fourth Amendment rights to allow warrantless searches of your home by both federal and state law enforcement officers.   

Obama says that he supports our right to defend our families in the home, IF common sense laws are passed to drastically restrict second amendment civil rights.  If we dont stop the erosion of our Second Amendment rights NOW, this is our future:


How Progressive Propaganda Fools the Useful Idiots

The First Amendment is being used to destroy the other nine, starting with the Second. We have Obamacare, record trillion dollar deficits, and a declining economy because of the main stream media. There is no Obama without the Progressive Propaganda Machine.

Gallup Polls show that most Americans do not have confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. In 2011 a 60% majority reported a perception of media bias, with 47% saying mass media was too liberal, 13% too conservative. Prevalence of the perception of bias was highest among partisans, with 78% of conservatives reporting a perception of bias, 53% of liberals reporting a perception of bias and 46% of moderates reporting a perception of bias. Those who view mass media reporting as just about right was polled at 36%. According to Gallup, in every year since 2002 more Americans think the media show liberal bias.

Insight from the far left Boston publication, The Atlantic, on how the workings of progressive propaganda:

Here is how advocates of gun control used to talk about their cause: They openly disputed that the Second Amendment conferred the right to own a gun. Their major policy goals were to make handguns illegal and enroll all U.S. gun owners in a federal database. The group now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once known as Handgun Control Inc.; a 2001 book by the executive director of the Violence Policy Center was entitled Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

Contrast that with what you see today: Gun-control groups dont even use the term gun control, with its big-government implications, favoring preventing gun violence instead. Democrat politicians preface every appeal for reform with a paean to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and bend over backwards to assure law-abiding gun owners they mean them no ill will. Even the president, a Chicago liberal who once derided rural voters tendency to cling to guns or religion, seeks to assure gun enthusiasts hes one of them by citing a heretofore-unknown enthusiasm for skeet shooting, adding, I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.

A frequent question in the current battle over gun control is why anyone should expect reform to succeed now when its failed repeatedly for the last 20 years. Maybe this is why: Between then and now, the gun banners got smarter. The liberal fascists have radically changed their message into one thats more appealing to the useful idiots, known as moderate voters.

The gun banners still want to undercut the Second Amendment, confiscate law-abiding Americans legally acquired firearms, and instigate federal-government monitoring of all gun owners. Theyre simply lying to achieve thier goal, something Obama has done since the day he starting running for President.

Federal licensing and registration as a requirement for gun ownership was a top policy goal in the 2000 Democratic presidential primary, then-Vice President Al Gore came out in favor of photo licenses for gun owners, drawing criticism from Senator Bill Bradley, who supported the further step of registering every gun. National bans on handguns were also on the agenda: One such proposal, introduced in the House and Senate in 1993, would have prohibit[ed] the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances, requiring current handgun owners to turn in their weapons over the course of a six-month grace period.

The idea that the Second Amendment didnt confer an individual right to own a gun, has always been a mainstream media view and part of the gun-control movements gospel.

In the Heller decision, The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the right of citizens to keep and bear firearms existed, knocking down the D.C. handgun ban in the process.

This sudden Democrat embrace of the Second Amendment has turned the Rocky Mountain West into a swing region. Harry Reid has a lifetime B rating from the NRA and in 2010 shared the stage with LaPierre at the opening of a gun range in Las Vegas for which Reid had secured federal land and a $61 million earmark. Reid owes his majority to the Democrats successful propaganda, which has rebranded them as pro-Second Amendment and is winning over rural, blue-collar, and Western useful idiots.

Wake up America. The gun banners goal will never change. They are coming after your guns. They just got smarter about the way they go about it.

Gun control? We need bullet control. I think every bullet should cost $5,000 dollars.-
Chris Rock