Barack Nixon Obama tries to hide the cover-up

Barack Nixon ObamaWhy has President Obama invoked executive privilege to avoid turning over documents to Congress involving Operation Fast & Furious, which shipped thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to murder hundreds of Mexicans and USBP Agent Brian Terry? Obama asserts that the documents he’s hiding don’t reveal that he or his advisors authorized the scheme, or that they tried to cover it up. He claims that all he’s hiding is confidential advice offered by his staff on how best to run the Executive Branch.

Imagine that the Bush Administration actually authorized Operation Fast & Furious, as the Obama Administration would like us to believe. Do you honestly think that they’d pass up the opportunity to blame Bush for all of that blood?

C’mon now. This is a cover-up, pure and simple. The Obama Administration’s corrupt lust for power and blind devotion to extremist progressive ideology got a lot of people killed, they know it’ll damage them on Election Day, and they value re-election over justice for murder victims and the preservation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mona Del Hirst, cybercriminal?

Mona Del Hirst may claim she was just engaged in “performance art” at 2225 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah on March 22, 2012 when she hacked into Tea Party activist Anna Jones’ Facebook account and helped her “art loving” progressive friends impersonate Miss Jones. However, she was possibly engaged in a crime under Utah law.

Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 6
Section 703.   Computer crimes and penalties.

(1) A person who without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to and alters, damages, destroys, discloses, or modifies any computer, computer network, computer property, computer system, computer program, computer data or software, and thereby causes damage to another, or obtains money, property, information, or a benefit for any person without legal right, is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor when:
(i) the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is less than $500; or
(ii) the information obtained is not confidential;

(b) a class A misdemeanor when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500;
(c) a third degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000;
(d) a second degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $5,000; or
(e) a third degree felony when:
(i) the property or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is a license or entitlement;
(ii) the damage is to the license or entitlement of another person; or
(iii) the information obtained is confidential; or
(iv) in gaining access the person breaches or breaks through a security system.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to a computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system under circumstances not otherwise constituting an offense under this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a retailer that uses an electronic product identification or tracking system, or other technology to identify, track, or price goods is not guilty of a violation of Subsection (2)(a) if the equipment designed to read the electronic product identification or tracking system data and used by the retailer to identify, track, or price goods is located within the retailer’s location.

(3) A person who uses or knowingly allows another person to use any computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system, program, or software to devise or execute any artifice or scheme to defraud or to obtain money, property, services, or other things of value by false pretenses, promises, or representations, is guilty of an offense based on the value of the money, property, services, or things of value, in the degree set forth in Subsection 76-10-1801(1).
(4) A person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization, interferes with or interrupts computer services to another authorized to receive the services is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(5) It is an affirmative defense to Subsections (1) and (2) that a person obtained access or attempted to obtain access in response to, and for the purpose of protecting against or investigating, a prior attempted or successful breach of security of a computer, computer network, computer property, computer system whose security the person is authorized or entitled to protect, and the access attempted or obtained was no greater than reasonably necessary for that purpose.

If Ms. Hirst is found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, she can be jailed for up to six months. For a Class A misdemeanor, the jail term can be up to a year. For a third degree felony, she can be jailed for up to five years. I hope she earned enough from her little “performance” to cover her attorney’s fees.

The smug “patrons” who participated in her crime “art” had better hope they can’t be identified by prosecutors.

Americans detained by their military on U.S. soil?

Let’s take a quick look at §1031, §1032, and §1033 of S.1867 (official text here). These are the three sections of the Senate’s version of the 2012 Defense Authorization Act that deal with military detention of terrorists. This bill is causing the ACLU to blow a gasket, and their wild-eyed predictions of Constitution-shredding doom have ignited e-mail inboxes nationwide.
This is the proposed text as it stands today. All highlighting is mine. The parts that sound scary (at first) are in yellow. The parts that should calm you down are in green. The parts that the ACLU and its radical friends are actually upset about are in blue.

What is Ohio’s Issue 3 all about?

Here it is in a nutshell:

Do you want to keep health care decisions between patients and doctors, and not politicians and bureaucrats? Do you want the freedom to choose the care and insurance that best fits your own needs? If so, vote yes on Issue 3, the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

Unless Issue 3 passes, this is what your health care system will look like.

And no, you will not get to keep your private insurance, because all private insurance plans will be crowded out by the government. You will be forced to join Obamacare if Issue 3 is defeated. If Issue 3 passes, we have a chance to defeat Obamacare and preserve your control over your relationship with your doctor, your insurer, and your employer.

Why vote “yes” on Ohio’s Issue 2?

Government employee unions are inherently corrupt, and they don’t care that cities across Ohio are going broke under the weight of pensions and health care expenses demanded by fat cat union bosses. Don’t fall for the myths they spread about the supposed evils of Issue 2. Don’t accept their dishonest scare tactics blindly and emotionally without thinking it all the way through.
Here are five good reasons to vote yes in tomorrow’s election:

  1. Strengthening Communities
  2. Safer Neighborhoods
  3. Rewarding Our Best Teachers
  4. Giving Teachers a Choice
  5. Restoring Power to Taxpayers

If Issue 2 fails to pass, you’re going to feel it in your wallet (an average of $6150 for each Ohioan), and you’re going to see it in layoffs of police, firemen, EMS crews, and teachers (because without Issue 2, cities cannot afford to employ them all).

Attention, ladies considering a concealed handgun license

Follow along with Emily Miller, a total gun novice, as she pursues a concealed carry permit in notoriously gun-averse Washington, DC:
Emily gets her gun

Emily Miller fires a SigI have no experience with guns. Although my father had a handgun while I was growing up — Baltimore is less safe than D.C. — he hid it from us and never talked about it. I only know that he had it because as a kid, I found a revolver under the driver’s car seat. He told me never to touch it, and that was the end of the discussion.
In contrast, my editor’s father taught the rules of gun safety and took him to a shooting range at 10 years old. So my editor offered to teach me the basic safety rules and skills and then shoot his guns at the range. Since he can’t legally bring his guns to our office in Washington, I went to his house in Virginia for the lesson. It’s remarkable how different the gun laws are once you step over the Potomac River.

My editor gave me a 22 caliber Browning Buckmark to start. I wasn’t thrilled because it didn’t look as cool as the other guns, but he insisted I learn with it. He put up the target and handed me a full magazine to load into the gun. He reminded me to keep my finger off the trigger until I was ready to shoot. I asked a female NRA aide who was about my size for help on the grip. She showed me how she held it — left hand holding right hand.
When I felt ready, I held the gun up to the target, closed my left eye to line up the sights then slowly and nervously, pulled back on the trigger. POP! “I did it!” I yelled excitedly, turning around slightly.
“Don’t turn around,” my editor said. “Keep shooting until the magazine is empty.” Pop. Pop. I pulled the trigger repeatedly, trying to carefully line up the gun after the kickback each time. After 10 rounds, I’d hit about half in the red. I was thrilled.
“Now try to group them, get the shots as close together to each other as you can,” my editor said. I shot another 10 bullets and had improved already. This was easier than I expected.

Odds are, you’ll learn something valuable.

It’s not Federalism if Allahpundit doesn’t like it

Aw, not this again.
Look, I understand that the infamous Allahpundit is pretty liberal on social issues. That’s fine. He’s entitled to be wrong, and it’s not at all surprising (he’s an atheist based in New York City). There’s nothing outrageously silly in this quote of his in a post about Rick Perry’s support for two proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution banning gay “marriage” and abortion:

Two caveats to his otherwise strict support for the Tenth Amendment, both of which happen to serve the agenda of social conservatives whose votes he’s depending on. He backed away from his “states’ rights” defense of legalizing gay marriage last week; here’s the inevitable climbdown on abortion too, which he described as a states’ rights issue a few days ago. Follow that last link and re-read the post to see why it was predictable. I’m surprised he didn’t anticipate the tension his Tenther rhetoric on these issues would cause with his base, which he could have defused by mentioning his support for the amendments straightaway. There’s nothing necessarily inconsistent in that position: You can be a strong federalist and still condone federal solutions for exceptionally grave evils like slavery which the states, for various reasons, can’t be trusted to police as diligently as they should. That’s the core of the pro-life argument for an anti-abortion amendment — it’s a matter, literally, of life and death. What’s Perry’s argument, though, for why gay marriage qualifies as an “exceptionally grave evil” warranting a nationwide ban? Is smoking, say, an evil sufficiently grave to require a constitutional amendment outlawing it? (Don’t answer that, liberals.) He’s not in a legal trap here but he is in a philosophical one. And a political one, of course, as the press will use this to throw him off his economic message. Specify, please, which behaviors are so pernicious that we can’t risk letting parochial state legislatures deal with them.

What’s outrageously silly — or intentionally obtuse — is the slug under the post on the home page. Here, click on the screen shot and look closely:
Perry’s current position does not conflict with his support for the Tenth Amendment, nor does it conflict with the doctrine of federalism. Amending the Constitution is inherently federalist, because every amendment must be ratified by the states. Read Article V yourself:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This is not the first or even the second time that Allah has tried this cute little assertion. Not buyin’ it, pal. Find a new rhetorical trick.

Is a ban on mosques in our future?

This post by DrewM over at Ace of Spades HQ has really stirred up a hornets’ nest in the comments. Drew slammed Herman Cain for a remark about banning mosques, and that kicked off the brawl. It makes me wonder what circumstances, if any, would convince a majority of Americans to support a ban on mosques … or even the internment of all Muslims in America.
Don’t automatically think “Oh, that’ll never happen.” After all, Americans of Japanese descent were interned during World War II.

4:00 UPDATE: Imagine this federal response:

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Like it or not, this approach would avoid First Amendment obstacles.

Veterans’ cemetery director censors Christian prayer

Shut up.For years Pastor Scott Rainey has participated in a Memorial Day prayer service at the Houston National Cemetery, which is administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Rainey has always prayed in the name of Jesus Christ, which should be no surprise coming from a Christian pastor. After all, Buddhist priests offer Buddhist prayers, Muslim imams offer Muslim prayers, and [insert faith here] clergymen offer [insert faith here] prayers.
As the 2011 Memorial Day prayer service approached, one of the event’s organizers invited Rainey to deliver a prayer as usual. But this year the cemetery’s director, Chicago native Arleen Ocasio, decided to stick her nose into the prayer service. She asked the organizer to forward Rainey’s prayer to her ahead of time for approval. The organizer, being a helpful sort of person, did so.
After reading Rainey’s prayer, Ocasio decided that she’d had just about enough of those icky Christians and their explicitly Christian prayers:

Proposition Twenty

With the debt ceiling fight heating up, there’s talk of a Balanced Budget Amendment again, but some don’t think it goes far enough. Here’s an interesting idea from John McClaughry that he calls Proposition Twenty. It’s a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit the national debt to $20 trillion:

Sec. 1. The total amount of gross federal debt shall not exceed the greater of twenty trillion dollars, or the amount outstanding as of the date this Article is ratified.
Sec. 2. No officer or employee of the United States, nor of any institution created by the United States, shall authorize the emission, issuance, sale or purchase of any security or obligation of the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, which would increase the gross Federal debt above the foregoing limit.
Sec. 3. Any citizen of the United States shall have standing to enjoin the action of any officer or employee of the United States, or his or her successors in office, where such action is alleged to be in violation of Section 2. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and decide any action brought under this section. If after one hundred and eighty calendar days following the filing of such an action, the Supreme Court has rendered no decision thereupon, Article XVI of the Amendments to this Constitution shall stand repealed at the beginning of the next ensuing calendar year.
Sec. 4. If the rate of increase of total receipts of the federal government for any fiscal year exceeds the average rate of increase in national income over the four year period ending not less than six months nor more than twelve months before such fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall within the ensuing fiscal year use the excess amount of such receipts to purchase and retire outstanding federal debt; and the limitation imposed by section 1 shall be reduced by a like amount.
Sec. 5. Congress may, by adopting a joint resolution declaring a state of war, suspend the effect of Sections 1 to 3 of this Amendment, but such suspension shall continue in force only during such period as the armed forces of the United States are engaged in actual armed hostilities against the armed forces of the nation against which the war was declared, and six months following the conclusion of those hostilities.

Now that’s shifting the debate.

State government runs amuck, tears out basketball hoops

Look at how arbitrary, dishonest, forceful, and unresponsive a state government can be. This is why we conservatives constantly warn about federal power; it’s even worse.

You want context? Here’s your context.
That blonde state official in the grey sweatshirt sure is infuriating, isn’t she? You’d hate to have to deal with people like her, wouldn’t you? Well, just one word should hit you in the gut after watching this video and imagining similar interactions with overbearing government drones.