Tag: Patriot Post

Please Support NCCR

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing that Democrats billed as an examination of “hate crimes, the impact white nationalist groups have on American communities, and the spread of white identity ideology.” It quickly became quite evident that the Democrats’ true intention for the hearing was to promote the mendacious narrative that “white extremism” is a major and growing problem — and President Donald Trump is supposedly the driving force behind it.

In a seemingly coordinated effort to advance this narrative, The New York Times last week ran an article claiming that “Attacks by White Extremists Are Growing.” The story highlighted the attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, where a self-proclaimed white supremacist murdered 50 people in an act of terror aimed at Muslims. The article then claimed that the Christchurch murderer “drew inspiration” from “an informal global network of white extremists whose violent attacks are occurring with greater frequency in the West.”

Once again we have a case of the narrative leading the story. It’s clear that the narrative the Times is pushing is that violence perpetrated by white supremacists is a serious and growing threat that is worse than people may believe. But do the facts support such a conclusion? Well, as is often the case with Leftmedia outlets like the Times, not so much.

The Times excluded several important contextualizing details, which immediately calls into question the reliability of the entire narrative. For example, no numbers were provided so as to establish the total number of extremist-related violent incidents globally. In 2017 alone, nearly 20,000 people were murdered by groups associated with radical Islamic extremists — a number not provided by the Times.

Meanwhile, the Times offers a nine-year timeline that notes 15 incidents of “white extremist” violence resulting in 194 people killed that were purportedly committed by individuals motivated by white racism. However, after a closer look into these attacks, one quickly finds that the motive of “white extremism” is not entirely clear … or even there at all.

As Seth Barron, writing for City Journal, observes, “Some of the most prominent killings … resist categorization as acts of white racial terror. Ali Sonboly, the son of Iranian Shi’ite Muslim immigrants and visibly a racial minority, carried out the 2016 Munich mall shooting. The 2016 Umpqua Community College shooting was carried out by a self-identified ‘mixed-race’ man, as was the 2014 Isla Vista massacre, whose perpetrator believed that being half-Chinese made him unattractive to women. The 2018 Toronto van massacre was perpetrated by a white man who declared that he was part of an ‘Incel Rebellion’ against the ‘Chads and Stacys’ of the world — in other words, he was angry that he could not get a girlfriend and was committed to overthrowing the ‘beautiful people.’ The killer mowed down pedestrians in Toronto’s business district at random. The Times’ inclusion of these four incidents calls into question the value of its diagnosis of ‘white extremist killers.’”

Finally, as The Wall Street Journal reports, “Since 1990, far-right extremists have killed 477 people in 214 attacks in the U.S., according to the crime data. A majority of the assaults targeted minorities, with 241 people dying in 170 attacks. (In the same period, the Global Terrorism Database records 31 far-right attacks with one or more deaths.)” In other words, violent attacks committed by “white extremists” are not on the rise — rather, the frequency of these violent hate crimes has remained relatively steady for the past 50 years. In any case, the crimes are dwarfed by attacks perpetrated by Islamofascists.

_____________________

Like what you just read? To protect our independence, we have never accepted advertising. Nor have we ever charged a subscription fee in order to reach the largest audience possible. Our operations budget depends solely on the generosity of readers like you. Please help us keep the timeless message of Liberty in front of grassroots Americans around the nation and make a donation today.

The Patriot Post Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today! [MORE ON ABOUT PAGE]

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’

Every day I try to move awake from Fake News Conspiracies and Obama’s Deep State outrages, THEN I run across another news story that simply brings my blood pressure to a boiling point.

I propose to aggregate some of these news tidbits I consider to be acts of treason.

I will begin with a stand-alone cross post from Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post looking at the hypocrisy of the Leftist MSM in posting news that fingers a wiretap against Trump YET denies that President Trump has any proof of being wiretapped.

JRH 3/8/17

*************

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’

The Trump/Putin myth — delegitimizing Trump’s election to keep the administration off-balance and derail his agenda.

By Mark Alexander

Mar. 8, 2017

Email Update Sent 3/8/2017 1:07 PM

NYT on Wiretapping & Fake News Denial

“But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth. Within that, it is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and of civil liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

Despite all the fake media hysterics, keeping the “Trump and Putin rigged the election” myth alive has nothing to do with facts. But it has everything to do with delegitimizing Trump’s stunning victory, keeping his administration off-balance and derailing his agenda.

As usual, leftists and their media sycophants never let facts get in the way of a political hatchet job.

Last weekend, Donald Trump tweeted a sensational claim — that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump and BO’s corrupt heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. The Democrats’ public relations department, a.k.a. the mainstream media, responded with howls that there was no evidence of any wiretaps, much less evidence Obama knew about any wiretaps — just more Trump paranoid hysteria.

However, Patriot Post editor Thomas Gallatin provided a heap of evidentiary substance for Trump’s claims, given that news of wiretaps on senior Trump leadership, while Obama was in office, had been widely affirmed by the same Leftmedia outlets now denying Trump’s claims about wiretaps. Some of the more notable MSM print and talkinghead “journalists” even cited these wiretaps as sources for their “reports” on Trump.

Gallatin pointed out that the MSM was “disingenuously dismissive” in rejecting Trump’s charge, especially given that an initial request to wiretap Trump’s team was turned down by the FISAC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court), but subsequent requests were granted.

Allow me to elaborate.

In June 2016, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch tried to meet secretly with Bill Clinton on a tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. A few days later, after a visit to the White House, Lynch’s Department of Justice asked the FISAC for wiretaps not just for communication devices in Trump’s office but specifically for Trump’s phones.

This request never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. (If only the NSA could produce a transcript of that conversation.) While FISAC most often rubber stamps requests, the court denied the Obama administration’s first request because it was a fishing expedition based on speculation of criminal activity.

On 21 July Trump became the Republican nominee. A week later, The Washington Post and other media outlets began propagating the Trump/Putin collusion myth.

In October, a month ahead of the presidential election, looking for any shred of evidence that might corroborate the myth, Obama’s Department of Justice again asked FISAC for wiretap warrants for Trump’s office, this time (according to our sources) omitting Trump’s name specifically and making the request on broad speculation about national security concerns. FISAC approved that request, and since such permissions apply, by extension, to others mentioned in the intercepted communications, we may fairly assume that Trump’s name was mentioned and, consequently, his lines were monitored.

Recall if you will that a week before the election, Hillary Clinton posted this social media message: “Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based server.”

Huh? Did she mean the “scientists” at the Department of Justice? Was she confusing this with the discovery of her own “covert servers”?

In fact, no such evidence of the Russian link has been discovered.

Sidebar: However, there were direct links between Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Russians, who paid him more than $170,000 for six months of “consulting” to influence Clinton and ensure, once elected, she would reduce the sanctions Obama was compelled to impose after Putin invaded Ukraine. His firm was paid $24 million in fees in 2016, mostly from foreign interests.

Back to the media’s now-acute case of wiretap amnesia — they now insist that Trump’s wiretap accusations have no merit.

Allow me to direct your attention to a headline on the front page of The New York Times on Inauguration Day, January 20th, which boldly cites Trump wiretaps as its source for information regarding assertions about collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign leadership team.

According to Times writer Michael Schmidt, “American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broader investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President elect Donald J Trump. … The FBI is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. … The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. [So, why is this front-page news on Inauguration Day?] One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Got that? Again, “some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” — while Obama was still in office.

This week, the same Times writer, Michael Schmidt, under the headline “Trump Offering No Evidence,” asserts that Trump “accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.”

The same “no evidence” headlines were atop The Washington Post and other MSM outlets.

Donald J. Trump‏

@realDonaldTrump

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

5:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017

For the record, while Trump’s social media wiretap messages were intended to imply that Obama had knowledge of the wiretaps, as is too often the case with such “loosely worded messaging,” he provided the MSM yet another “huge” opening to focus on the fallacy of his “literal message.”

Frankly, all of us should be able to take the literal words of a United States president posted on social media, literally. There is now a predictable MSM blowup pattern when Trump’s version of literal departs from the rest of the world’s reality, and these self-inflicted wounds continue to cost him precious political capital.

In this instance, the MSM used his literal messages to divert from the questionable legality of the wiretaps and their propagation of the Trump/Putin myth, and focus instead on the fact there is currently no evidence of Obama fingerprints on, or knowledge of, those wiretaps — even though Schmidt wrote in January that the wiretapped communications were provided to the White House while Obama was in office.

Let me reiterate: The July and October wiretap requests never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. But there will likely be no fingerprints or electronic trail on these consents. Obama’s staff would have most certainly ensured that he had “plausible deniability” in regard to any knowledge of politically motivated wiretaps.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concludes, “I think [Trump is] right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general — at the Justice Department.” But proving it is another matter.

That notwithstanding, there is plenty of reason for anyone with an ounce of healthy skepticism to conclude, with high probability, that Trump’s communications were intercepted and, with a reasonable level of confidence, that Obama was aware of those wiretaps.

Of course, the first victim within Trump’s administration to be felled by these “non-existent wiretaps” — orchestrated and illegally released by some yet-to-be determined government hack while Obama was in office — was Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Flynn, as you may recall, was the most vocal former high-ranking military officer who opposed Obama’s nefarious “Iran Nuke Deal,” which is precisely what put him in the sights of Obama’s deep state operatives who remain within the FBI and/or CIA.

After his confirmation in January, Flynn was bushwhacked with a complicated web of media accusations based on wiretap transcripts, which were illegally distributed to Obama-friendly MSM outlets.

Though the Flynn transcripts indicated no wrongdoing, in February he fell on his own sword and resigned in order to minimize the collateral political damage to the Trump administration. (For the record, the CIA and the Departments of Justice and Treasury are now being sued by Judicial Watch, on behalf of Flynn, to see whose fingerprints are on those wiretaps.)

Amid the wiretap wars this week, you may have missed this conclusion about the Trump/Putin election collusion from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. According to Clapper, there wasn’t “any evidence” found by the CIA or FBI in their investigations that would indicate “any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

The New York Times conceded as much in January and again in February, so why was this a front-page headline story?

But as noted previously, the Leftmedia never let facts get in the way of a political hit piece — until they’re caught in a BIG propaganda lie. In the light of truth, the political cockroaches scurry for cover.

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and respected legal analyst, summarized the lie: “The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand.”

McCarthy continued, “Into this misleading ‘Russia hacked the election’ narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.”

As for the Leftmedia retreat, McCarthy notes, “Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISAC orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?”

Constitutional attorney Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese, asserts that while “No evidence is found” tying Trump or anyone on his team to Russia, “the wiretaps continue.”

Levin concludes, “The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it.”

Which leads me back to my original assertion: The Trump/Putin myth being propagated by the Democrats and their Leftmedia propagandists has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with derailing Trump’s agenda. However, Trump’s social media messages are certainly assisting their cause.

Footnote: Unfortunately, some of the “conservative media,” most notably Fox News, are reading off the same Beltway memos being broadcast by the Leftmedia — but then they also have advertising to sell… Fox News now has a lower rating for “somewhat credible” and higher rating for “not credible” than CNN, according to recent news credibility polling.

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Pro Deo et Libertas ~ 1776

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertas — 1776

___________________

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for supporting the Patriot Fund!

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2017 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401

About The Patriot Post

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

Mission

From our 1996 inception, with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus), Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus) and our National Advisory Committee, The Patriot Post has been steadfast in our mission advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

Thanks to our fellow Patriots across the nation, and our devoted team of editors, technical and creative staff, and support personnel, The Patriot Post has grown from its humble beginnings into a highly acclaimed touchstone of Liberty for conservative leaders across our nation, and the leading online resource for First Principles.

Our objective is to equip the current generation of American Patriots with the right information to more effectively “Support and Defend” the unalienable Rights of Man, as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, and codified by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution. Since our first day in circulation, The Patriot has been an indispensable resource for the force multipliers in our ranks, who have enlisted many others to the eternal cause of Liberty.

The Patriot Post frames current political and policy issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Operations

The Patriot Post—inspired by our … READ THE REST

The Difference Between Lies and the Truth

Mark Alexander looks at the lies told by Hillary Clinton on the 10/13 CNN debate. Incidentally lies that Bernie Sanders says he is weary of listening to. Not because he has heard too many lies but implying Hillary’s lies are either the truth or not proven ergo irrelevant. Sanders was tired of hearing about those “damn” emails, as if the Hillary-email idiocy was a hoax. I guess if the Dems get away with this line reasoning, the Dem voters are as moronic as the Dem Party believes.

JRH 10/14/15

Please Support NCCR

********************

The Difference Between Lies and the Truth

By Mark Alexander

October 14, 2015

Democrats Explained in Logos

“[She] who permits [herself] to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; [she] tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing [her]. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

Patriots, I am away this week with my hero — my father, who is critically ill. As always, our able editors remain on station!

Nate Jackson provided analysis of the few substantive remarks from the Demo-Debate Tuesday night, particularly assertions from Hillary Clinton regarding her email server subterfuge.

For more than a year, Clinton has endeavored to escape accountability for unlawfully maintaining all of her official communications outside of official networks when she was secretary of state. Clearly, this was an effort to protect her 2016 presidential bid from the plethora of nefarious activities reflected in those emails.

Unfortunately, careless remarks by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago bolstered Clinton’s claims that the Benghazi investigation was just political. In fact, the business of that committee is deadly serious.

In the debate, Clinton claimed, “[The Benghazi] committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that’s what they have attempted to do.”

Further, regarding her electronic communication charade, Clinton insisted, “I’ve been as transparent as I know to be.” That vacuous remark is completely meaningless.

Her evasive efforts notwithstanding, there are two things that need to remain front and center about Clinton’s felonious email communications — and her subsequent cover-up efforts.

First, her emails show her complicity in formulating the political lie about the murder of our personnel in Benghazi — Christopher Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, and two diplomatic security officers, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Her Benghazi lie was an effort by Clinton and others in the State Department to provide Obama political cover for his “al-Qa’ida on the run” campaign theme just weeks ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

So determined was Clinton to propagate this lie that she shamefully stood in front of those four flag-draped caskets and declared to the families of the dead, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Second, despite Clinton’s claims, “I did not email any classified material to anyone” and “There is no classified material,” it is now apparent that hundreds and perhaps thousands of her unsecured email communications contained significant classified content. Transmitting that content is a felony.

But not only was her arrogant “above the law” use of unsecured email illegal, it was deadly dangerous because it exposed policy directives and the names of covert operatives. And only the most naïve Clintonista would insist that Russia and China did not have access to all of her unsecured communication.

Last weekend, Barack Obama declared, “I can tell you that [Clinton’s unsecured email server] is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” His minions are now walking back that absurd assertion.

Fact is, the greatest threat to America’s national security has been, and remains, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In an address to the nation in 2010, Barack Obama declared, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Obama and Clinton have avoided the truth as if their political lives depended on it — which of course, they do.

Share

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

*PUBLIUS*

__________________________

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Defend Liberty! – Support The Patriot Post

Jade Helm 15 and the Conspiracy Theories

Mark Alexander spanks Alex Jones over Jade Helm 15 Conspiracy Theories then Alexander goes on to show there are more patriots in the U.S. Military than any Leftist revolutionaries that an Obama might drum up for martial law or suspending the Constitution. The icing on the cake is Alexander’s brief explanation for the reason the Founding Fathers made a Second Amendment is to give the American people the opportunity to rise up against a rogue despotic government.

JRH 7/17/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Jade Helm 15 and the Conspiracy Theories

A Reality Check on Military Exercises

ByMark Alexander

July 15, 2015

Support The Patriot Post

“Nothing is so contagious as opinion, especially on questions which … beget in the mind a distrust of itself.” —James Madison (1790)

Have you heard about Jade Helm 15? If the answer is “no,” then you don’t get your “news” from the paranoid purveyors of conspiracy theories at websites such as Infowars and World Net Daily. They gin up concern about non-issues in order to drive traffic to their websites — and to thereby sell advertising, products and services.

Jade Helm 15 is the name of a major military exercise scheduled to run between 15 July and 15 September. The exercise is coordinated by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and involves special forces units of the Army and other service branches.

According to the Army SpecOps Command: “While multi-state training exercises such as these are not unique to the military, the size and scope of Jade Helm sets this one apart. To stay ahead of the environmental challenges faced overseas, Jade Helm will take place across seven states. However, Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) will only train in five states: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. The diverse terrain in these states replicates areas Special Operations Soldiers regularly find themselves operating in overseas. The training exercise will be conducted on private and public land with the permission of the private landowners, and from state and local authorities.”

An unclassified power point lays out the exercise in some detail. It involves about 1,200 military personnel, primarily Army Green Berets and infantry, but also some Navy SEALS and Air Force special operators.

Compared to other recent domestic military exercises, Jade Helm is large for peacetime practice (if you consider these to be “peacetimes”) and it’s the “the size and scope” that has all the conspiracy conscripts concerned that its real purpose is to prepare for an imminent declaration of martial law.

In Texas, home to almost two million active duty military personnel and veterans, the king of charismatic conspiracy kooks, Alex Jones, has generated a lot of heartburn among his unwitting lemmings.

Jones says he stopped using marijuana because “it made me paranoid,” then dropped out of Austin Community College before launching his Austin-based conspiracy enterprises, Infowars and his populist radio programs. Over the last few months, he has alerted his two million listeners that Jade Helm is “way worse than you realize,” claiming it was really about “military, police working together toward population control,” and “the U.S. Army’s plan to wage war on the American people.” According to Jones, “They’re going to practice breaking into things and stuff. This is going to be hellish. Now this is just a cover for deploying the military on the streets… This is an invasion … in preparation for the financial collapse and maybe even Obama not leaving office.”

Jones has ginned up concern with headlines like “Beyond Denial: Preparations for Martial Law in America,” warning that the “U.S. military is positioning itself to take over the states and declare martial law.”

This is the same Alex Jones who insists the federal government staged the Oklahoma City bombing and that George Bush organized the 9/11 attack.

He has stirred up so many Lone Star folks that Gov. Greg Abbott is having the State Guard monitor Jade Helm in an effort to quell the discontent. According to Abbott, “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office “has been inundated with calls,” and adds, “Certainly, I can understand these concerns. When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mack Thornberry (R-TX) says that the idea of our military acting as Obama’s “private army” was “just silly.” And of course it is.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he had “no reason to doubt” the nature and purpose of this exercise, and offered a rational explanation for the Jade Helm concerns: “I think part of the reason is we have seen, for six years, a federal government disrespecting the liberty of the citizens. And that produces fear. When you see a federal government that is attacking our free speech rights, or religious liberty rights, [and] our Second Amendment rights, that produces distrust as to government.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter assured those concerned that the DoD has been “very open and upfront about our training activities” and “very responsive” to citizen inquiries — and they have.

Unfortunately, otherwise rational grassroots folks get swept up by conspiracy charismatics.

So, reality check — should folks be concerned about “the size and scope” of the Jade Helm exercise?

The short answer is “no,” but I admit that my perspective on such exercises is somewhat biased.

Having held for almost 25 years an executive-level appointment in a reserve national security capacity (one of those so-called “shadow government” folks assigned to FEMA/DHS), I have been involved in more than a few training exercises for senior military personnel.

Thus, I can assure you that the number of conservative Patriots in uniform is much higher than in any other profession. May I remind you that, according to reputable annual surveys conducted by The Military Times, Barack Obama’s approval rating among military personnel has fallen from a paltry 35% in 2009 to just 15% now, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55%.

Obama loathes our military Patriots, as most of them do him. Frankly, he has far more concern about military loyalties than the good people of Texas need have. The notion that somehow our military Patriots will follow a pathological narcissist like Obama down a path to tyranny is patently absurd.

This is not to say that Americans should not be vigilant against the mischief that can infiltrate standing armies when a Socialist Democrat occupies the Executive Branch.

In 2010, we were alerted by some of our readers within the military that the designer of an Army security exercise listed the grassroots Tea Party among the terrorist groups that might assault Ft. Knox — “in order to make it more realistic.” We exposed this exercise in a column titled “Army Preps for Tea Party ‘Terrorists’,” and within hours of publication we heard from the commanding officer at Ft. Knox that the exercise was scrapped and the individual who drafted that scenario was being disciplined.

But there is a wide gulf between rational vigilance and the conspiracy hysterics currently associated with Jade Helm.

Rational vigilance has its origins with our Founders.

In 1783, George Washington wrote, “A large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary.”

In 1787, in a speech before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Consequently, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of our Constitution reads, “The Congress shall have Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

In other words, our Founders understood that the size of our military should comport with the exigencies of the time. Unfortunately, the current CINC does not understand those exigencies.

Our Founders also understood that American security against a standing army whose leaders disregarded their solemn oaths to defend our Constitution was contained in the plain language of that venerable document’s Second Amendment as the first assurance of the unalienable Rights of Man.

In 1787 Noah Webster observed, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Madison, who was the principal author of our Constitution, noted, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … [T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Our Founders uniformly understood that the individual right to self-defense constituted the best defense of Liberty for the whole people. Madison’s Supreme Court appointee, Justice Joseph Story, best summed up the Second Amendment: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

A century after the American Revolution, Congress enacted a specific prohibition, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, greatly limiting the use of military forces by federal authorities in a domestic law enforcement capacity. The primary exception is the use of National Guard and state defense forces under the authority of the governor of a state.

So what to do with the conspiracy propagandists on the Left and Right?

First, it’s worth understanding the nature of such theories and those who buy into these deceptions.

Every conspiracy theory is a combination of a foundational fact plus a lot of fiction heaped upon it — and each depends on a basic maxim, “You can’t prove a negative.” Pop conspiracy theories are all constructed on this predictable formula: 10% substance and 90% fragrance.

Most of these conspiracies assert the existence of a global political or economic “star chamber,” often puppet masters who are members of the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations.

Most disciples of such nonsense are not inherently ignorant or bad, but they harbor basic insecurities that compel them to grasp “straw man” explanations when their insecurities are triggered. The sense of order out of chaos derived from a conspiracy theory tends to satiate their insecurity. Notably, they are often most vulnerable to Internet conspiracy gurus, who decode events with greatly simplified theories. The most ardent adherents within these cults — the 9/11 “Truthers,” for example — have surrendered their willingness to discern fact from fiction in order to sustain their sense of security.

Beyond understanding the psychology behind this phenomenon, conspiracy theorists should be boldly called out for the pathetic frauds they are, and we should encourage anyone who subscribes to their folly to stop drinking their toxic Kool-Aid.

Jones, et al., are doing an enormous disservice to the conservative movement in Texas, dragging a lot of otherwise rational folks down a rat hole and creating unwarranted tension between civilian and military Patriots. Jones has never taken an oath “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, nor has he served a day in uniform. He has no understanding of the sense of duty, honor and sacrifice that forms the foundational drive among our military personnel.

He is promoting division between uniformed and non-uniformed Patriots at a time when military morale is very low.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who served under Rick Perry, published a Dallas Morning News op-ed calling out the travesty of the Jade Helm conspiracy clowns. Dewhurst wrote, “Unfortunately, some Texans have projected their legitimate concerns about the competence and trustworthiness of President Barack Obama onto these noble warriors. This must stop.”

Indeed it must.

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

*PUBLIUS*

_____________________

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

About Mark M. Alexander

Executive Editor & Publisher, The Patriot Post

Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Patriot Post

the Web’s “Voice of Essential Liberty”. His strong academic vitae in constitutional government and policy combined with his real-world occupational experience ensure his contributions as an essayist and analyst reflect the grassroots conservatism of the heartland, rather than the ubiquitous Beltway news and opinion.

Alexander attributes the character-rich content of his columns to the ethics and values modeled and instilled by his parents, the timeless traits of duty, honor, discernment, courage, personal responsibility, citizenship, generosity and compassion. He was raised to live the “third person” principle: God first, others second and self third — and notes that he “sometimes, by the grace of God, manages to conduct his life in that order.”

Typical of many in his generation, Alexander learned the merits of hard work and civic responsibility early. His … READ THE REST

About The Patriot Post

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!“ —George Washington

Mission

The Patriot Post is the highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual rights and responsibilities, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

The Patriot is a primary touchstone of First Principles for grassroots Americans, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks. Our editorial team reviews thousands of reputable news, policy and opinion pages in order to craft a concise, informative and entertaining Daily Digest analyzing the most significant issues.

We believe, as did our Founders and generations of Patriots since, that we have an obligation “to support and defend” Liberty and the unalienable Rights of Man, ensured by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution.

The Patriot Post frames … READ THE REST

The Company Clinton Keeps

Evidently Sidney Blumenthal is a political hack for Hillary Clinton. Read how so by Dan Gilmore.

JRH 5/20/15

******************************

The Company Clinton Keeps

By Dan Gilmore

May 20, 2015

Defend Liberty! Support The Patriot Post

If one of the marks of a good leader is the ability to choose and then keep good advisers, then let Hillary Clinton be known for the company whose advice she seeks.

Longtime Clinton lackey Sidney Blumenthal made The New York Times this week when the paper reported on leaked information that the House Select Committee on Benghazi may issue a subpoena for his role in the events surrounding the attack on the Benghazi consulate Sept. 11, 2012. Indeed, the House followed up that leak by issuing the subpoena that day. Blumenthal will appear before the committee June 3.

We don’t know who leaked the information and supporting emails to the Times. The ranking Democrat on the committee, Elijah Cummings, was quick to pin blame on Republicans for an illegal witch-hunt. “[T]he latest abuses by the Committee are just one more example of a partisan, taxpayer-funded attack against Secretary Clinton and her bid for president,” he said in a grammatically challenged statement. But it’s hard to see how Republicans would gain by leaking news of their own subpoena.

Still, Cummings is defending a diehard Clinton loyalist, nay, hatchet man. Denied a position in the Obama State Department in 2009, Blumenthal scored a job at the Clinton Foundation. It was from there that he advised then-Secretary of State Clinton on the deteriorating situation in Libya, all the while working with a group of business partners who wanted to build schools, hospitals and shelters in the war-torn North African nation. Say, what’s that definition for “conflict of interest” again?

The story of Hillary Clinton and Blumenthal begins in the ‘90s. Bill and Hillary were in the White House and Blumenthal was a journalist at The New Republic. Blumenthal dropped all appearance of objectivity and pledged his heart to the Clinton Machine. In a 1998 profile, The Baltimore Sun described Blumenthal as someone who played both journalist and political player, and who craved the power networking and slinging ink brought.

During his time as a Clinton staffer, Blumenthal earned the nickname “GK” — or “Grassy Knoll” — for his penchant for floating conspiracy theories. He was the person who pinned the Clinton’s ills on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He was the one who dismissed Monica Lewinsky as a stalker.

When Hillary Clinton needed to dig up dirt on Barack Obama in the 2008 Democrat primary, Blumenthal took the shovel.

Naturally, when Obama appointed Clinton as secretary of state, Clinton wanted to hire Blumenthal. But Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, shot the idea down. The New York Times reported in 2009 that Blumenthal’s attacks against candidate Obama cut too deep and there was bad blood. That and Blumenthal’s security clearance might have been affected after he was charged with a DWI when he was stopped for driving 70 mph in a 30 mph zone while campaigning for Clinton in 2008.

So, instead, Blumenthal went to work at the Clinton ~~Jobs-for-Hacks Program~~ Foundation.

When it came to gathering information on Libya, Clinton found she had limited intelligence. Investigative nonprofit news outlet ProPublica reported, “According to State Department personnel directories, in 2011 and 2012 — the height of the Libya crisis — State didn’t have a Libyan desk officer, and the entire Near Eastern Magreb Bureau, which covers Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya, had just two staffers.”

And who should Clinton turn to but her old friend “GK” Blumenthal. From 2011 to 2013, he passed on reports from his “very sensitive sources” to Clinton’s private email account. But Blumenthal, a wonk based inside the DC Beltway, couldn’t have done this research by himself.

In its story on Blumenthal’s involvement with Clinton in Libya, the Times reports, “Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.”

On top of Blumenthal’s self-interested dealings, he fired off half-baked conspiracies. In a March 8, 2012, email marked CONFIDENTIAL, Blumenthal alleged that France’s and Britain’s intelligence agencies were working to destabilize Libya by encouraging groups in eastern Libya to create a semi-autonomous zone. Clinton forwarded this report to her then-deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan and wrote, “This one strains credulity.”

Sullivan offered to forward Blumenthal’s report — just like he forwarded the other reports to Clinton’s staff, including Ambassador Chris Stevens — but he agreed: Grassy Knoll’s report “seems like a thin conspiracy theory.”

Clinton could have asked for more information and staff from the State Department. She was the secretary, after all, and she needed it. Instead, like her email system, she created a homebrewed intelligence network.

Then on Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists attacked the Benghazi consulate. Chris Stevens was killed, along with three other Americans. The day after, State released a secret memo pinning the blame on a premeditated terrorist attack. But that’s not what Blumenthal wrote. ProPublica reported: “On September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, Blumenthal sent a memo that cited a ‘sensitive source’ saying that the interim Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf, was told by a senior security officer that the assault was inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S., as well as by allegations from Magariaf’s political opponents that he had CIA ties.”

Grassy Knoll’s fiction became the official story for a couple of weeks, and that is why the Benghazi committee wants to speak to him.

Blumenthal’s story isn’t over. He has been with Clinton since the beginning. If she wins the presidency, “Grassy Knoll” will be somewhere in the upper reaches of her administration, whispering in her ear.

_________________________

About The Patriot Post

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

Mission

The Patriot Post is the highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual rights and responsibilities, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

We believe, as did our Founders and generations of Patriots since, that we have an obligation “to support and defend” Liberty and the unalienable Rights of Man, ensured by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution.

The Patriot Post frames current policy and culture issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders, and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that … READ THE REST

BO’s Blinding Islamophilia

I’m probably not as much an erudite writer as I am one who writes within the scope of a sense frustration. Thus when I do run into an erudite writer as the Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander, I am quite happy to cross post their thoughts. In this post Alexander succinctly writes what I have been blogging for some time. Read, enjoy, but most of all, understand the message!

JRH 2/12/15

*********************************

BO’s Blinding Islamophilia

The REAL National Security Threat

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 11, 2015

Contribute to The Patriot Post

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)

Islamophile: One who is so enchanted by Islam as to be under the influence of its tenets.

In 2009, I noted that Barack Hussein Obama’s remarkably brief White House bio began with this fallacious assertion: “His story is the American story – values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…” And you can make up the rest.

Amazingly, his [BIG Lie] (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209] bio page has not been altered since then.

So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and where his religious alliances fall, let’s briefly review.

Barack was conceived to unwed parents, Ann Dunham and his Kenyan father, BHO senior, both atheists. They were later married and then divorced. When Obama was four, his mother remarried, this time to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. In his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote that Soetoro subscribed to “a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”

At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who might best be described as agnostic. There, he would fall under the spell of an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.

As a young adult and budding “community organizer,” Obama was taken under wing by a radical black supremacist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and his wife, Michelle, baptized their children and stewarded BO’s “faith” for 20 years. For those two decades, Obama also developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger and others.

That is the real Barack Obama bio, and those are his “values from the heartland.” Further, while he self-identifies as “Christian” rather than Muslim, that claim may be as deceptive as his bio.

With that in mind, in this seventh year of Obama’s seemingly limitless foreign and domestic policy failures, despite the ominous and impending threats from resurgent al-Qa’ida terrorist networks, the Islamic State, and clear evidence that Islamist Jihadis are targeting the USA, Obama never mentioned al-Qa’ida or Islam in his 2015 SOTU address three weeks ago.

Nor did Obama mention Islam when referencing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in early January, except to insist again that Islam is the “Religion of Peace.”

British journalist Douglas Kear Murray, an expert on Islam, asserts that many Muslims today subscribe to “a creed of Islamic fascism – a malignant fundamentalism, woken from the dark ages to assault us here and now.” He notes, “The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.”

More recently, Obama dismissed the subsequent slaughter of Jews in Paris as an act committed by “a bunch of violent vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.” Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest demonstrated a heroic display of verbal contortionism in endeavoring to explain Obama’s assertion that the attack was random. Those “violent vicious zealots” were Islamists, and there was nothing “random” about terrorists targeting a kosher Jewish deli.

Last week, Obama used a Christian forum, the National Prayer Breakfast, to sanctimoniously denigrate Christians. The theme for this year’s event was “Remembering the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” when more than a million Christians were murdered by Muslims. That notwithstanding, he claimed Christians and Muslims are equal partners in murder and mayhem:

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place – remember that the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He added, “Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Really? For the record, Obama has ordered drone strikes against Islamic targets that have killed more Muslims in six years than were killed during three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. (Look it up!) And the Crusades were, arguably, undertaken in the name of “the church,” not Jesus Christ. As Islamic scholar and historian Bernard Lewis notes,

“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

Clearly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that advocates or could even be loosely construed to advocate violence against non-Christians. However, there is plenty in the Quran and the Hadith (the teachings of Muhammad) advocating death to infidels. As Franklin Graham reminds us,

“Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give his life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the child in Indian immigrants, rebutted Obama’s assertion, saying,

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam. … The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

As to Obama’s reference to slavery, the abolitionist movement to end chattel slavery in the United States 150 years ago was led by white and black Christian men and women, as was the movement to end segregation 50 years ago. Christians of yore were at the forefront of these sweeping changes, while Muslims today are at the forefront of murderous global Jihad.

This metastasizing Islamic threat advocates for a “master race,” much as did Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. However, rather than a world dominated by Aryans, Islamists seek a worldwide caliphate of Islamists, or “Jihadistan.” And on the subject of percentages, some have suggested that because only 10 percent of Muslims are extremists we need not worry. However, in 1940 only seven percent of Germans belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party. How did that work out?

Notably, the 2014 Global Slavery Index reports that of the more than 29 million humans held today in captive slavery – defined as “the possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of his or her individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal” – more than 18 million are being held in Islamic countries, primarily (and ironically) in Africa.

Indeed, ISIL has institutionalized slavery in the Middle East.

In an interview this week, Obama delusionally insisted that concern about [Islamic] terrorism is simply media-driven hype:

“If it bleeds it leads, right? … It’s all about ratings.”

When asked why Obama would posit such a ludicrous assertion, my favorite psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said flatly,

“Because he believes it. … If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. … This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander in chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack.”

Krauthammer added,

“For the last six years Obama has acted as if the biggest threat American security [in the Middle East] is the Israeli government.”

Curiously, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, “We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends.” Whose religion was he referencing?

Perhaps the answer is found in Obama’s many words of praise for Islam since 2009:

“I will stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. … The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. … We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. … As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. … Islam has always been part of America. … We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. … These [Ramadan] rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. … America and Islam … share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … America is not and will never be at war with Islam. … Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. … In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. … Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. … Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

So, why does Obama refuse to mention Islam in connection with worldwide Islamic Jihad that is at our doorstep?

I believe it is because he is, first and foremost, an Islamophile, and thus he has what is almost a pathological blindness to the threat posed by Jihad.

On the other hand, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former Defense Intelligence Agency director, has been very clear in his assessment of our enemy:

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists. … There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity. … [They] accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies. … A strong defense is the best deterrent. … The dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary. I think there is confusion about what it is that we are facing. It’s not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it’s also a large [radicalized segment of Muslims] who or threatening our very way of life. … We really don’t have an effective strategy that is coherent, that actually addresses the wider problem. … I think what the American public is looking for is … moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of passivity and confusion.”

Flynn’s assessment follows that of the Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said a year ago,

“Al-Qa’ida is morphing and franchising itself … in Yemen, Somalia, in North Africa, in Syria … and what’s going on there … is very, very worrisome. … Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

Even one of the Democratic Party’s most liberal members, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, insisted,

“The presence of terrorist groups including those formerly affiliated with al-Qa’ida and others, has spread over the past year. In fact terrorism is at an all-time high worldwide.”

And this week, Congress provided the Army an end-run around Obama’s classifying Nidal Hasan’s murderous attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Instead, it is now classified as an act of terrorism and Hasan’s victims will now receive Purple Hearts.

But Obama can’t bring himself to call it what it is.

In fact, he insisted this week that climate change is a far greater threat, but noted it’s “happening [on] such a broad scale and [is] such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”

Fact is, bloody Islamist attacks are also “happening on a broad scale” and on a “day-to-day basis” – and are getting closer to home every day. The murder of American relief worker Kayla Mueller, as confirmed yesterday, is yet another example of the evil we are confronting.

So, let me script this one for Obama so at his next stump speech he gets it right:

“We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Violent global jihad poses an immense existential threat to the civilized world, particularly since Iran is, or already has, the capacity to hand its asymmetric surrogates a nuclear weapon.”

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

As Editor I took the liberty to block quote the quotations used by Mark Alexander if those quotations were at the end of a paragraph.

About The Patriot Post

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!“ —George Washington

Mission

The Patriot Post is the nation’s highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

We believe, as did our Founders, that we have an irrevocable right and obligation “to support and defend” Liberty, as “endowed by our creator” and enshrined as Rule of Law in our Republic’s Constitution.

Operations

Key Managers of the Patriot Team

The Patriot Post—inspired by our National Advisory Committee and crafted by an editorial team headed by Mark Alexander—is an indispensable resource for “grass-top” leaders across the nation. These conservative gate keepers use our content as a force multiplier, a source of critical information and inspiration for their grassroots constituencies. The Patriot Post provides a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. We offer a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week’s most significant news, policy and opinion in our Daily Digest, while … READ THE REST

The Imperial President

Mark Alexander points out that even Left Wing Constitutional academics are saying President Barack Hussein Obama has crossed the Constitutional line.

JRH 7/18/17

************************************

The Imperial President

The Rule of Outlaws

By Mark Alexander

Jul. 16, 2014

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” –Declaration of Independence (1776)

According to a source within the Secret Service, Barack Obama refers to himself as “The Bear” when diverting from a planned security route for “meet and greet photo ops.” He announces such departures by saying, “The bear is loose!”

Now, I’m sure it’s only coincidence that “The Bear” is also the mascot of the former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation. While it would be more fitting if Obama referred to himself as “The Red Squirrel,” his wishful “bear” reference certainly reflects the tyrannical “rule of lawlessness” that now defines his presidential modus operandi.  Obama’s administration is now defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably this incomplete list of ignominy: The failure of his so-called “economic recovery plan, his unparalleled foreign policy malfeasance, his ”Fast and Furious“ gun control play, his long list of ObamaCare lies, his IRS Enemies List, the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida, the Benghazi cover-up to protect his 2012 re-election bid, his hollow ”Red Line“ threat to Syria, the ”Russian Spring“ in Crimea, the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Israel, the disintegration of Iraq, and now, of course, the VA death panels cover-up and the immigration crisis on our southern border.

He has certainly earned the public opinion title of ”worst president since WWII,“ which has negated the smidgeon of good faith he once held with congressional Republicans, and also most of that extended him by all but the most leftwing congressional Democrats.

So what’s Obama to do?

Having lost control of the House in 2010 and having failed to recover it in 2012, and the pending threat of losing Democrat control of the Senate, Obama has launched, in earnest, a campaign to completely bypass Congress through executive and regulatory diktat, a bold and lawless endeavor unmatched in its unconstitutional offense, except perhaps by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despotic regime.

The range of his executive and regulatory edicts has been very broad, from 19 executive orders constricting Second Amendment rights, to regulations supporting his “war on coal” and avoiding the Keystone XL pipeline.

But the most notable abuses have included his repeated rewrites of the so-called ”Affordable Care Act,” in order that it not wound the re-election campaigns of his congressional Democrats.

Now, Obama is increasingly audacious in the exercise of these unlegislated diktats.

In November of last year, he pretended to be constrained by law in acting on immigration reform, saying, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing this through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition.”

But a few months later, Obama proclaimed, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own.” He complained that “we can’t wait” for Congress, and bragged that he’s “getting things done” by disregarding Rule of Law and the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution.

“[W]e are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” he brazenly declared. “I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

These are the words of a despot, and now define Obama’s standard operating procedure, whether secretly ordering the “Taliban Five” terrorist trade for an Army deserter, or choking the economy with his executive and regulatory orders, ostensibly to halt “global warming.”

Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, “I think that he has crossed the constitutional line. … When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through the active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

“What’s emerging,” Turley notes, “is an imperial presidency, an über presidency, as I’ve called it. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system.”

Reread those words for their full effect…

In his 1973 volume, “The Imperial Presidency,” noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, a key adviser to John F. Kennedy, outlined the extreme danger to Liberty posed by lawless executive overreach. At that time, his focus was on Richard Nixon, but his warnings, like those of Turley, have far more application to Barack Obama.

So, with 30 more months of Obama’s escalating assault on Liberty, what now? Make no mistake – this “lame duck” is anything but.

Turley advises, “If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before [Obama] leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the President.”

As the ever-erudite Dr. Charles Krauthammer notes, “[Obama’s] gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? … This president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: ‘I am going to do X – and I’m not going to wait for Congress.’ That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”

Of course, I think the good doctor would agree, given his sterling psychiatric credentials, that the rise of Obama’s imperial presidency was entirely predictable, given that he is a textbook case study in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Speaking in Texas last week, Obama’s egomaniacal arrogance shined through with his lavish first-person references – “I,” “me” and “my” (199 times in all) – when outlining upcoming plans to unilaterally dictate “immigration reform” and additional “economic measures.”

This week, he made clear his intent to unilaterally advance his populist “class warfare agenda” to “help working Americans … when Congress won’t act.” In his latest weekly address, Obama insisted, “So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.”

That lie earned him a stern rebuke from even The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, as did his earlier claim that Republicans “have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class,” about which The Post concluded, “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.” But for Obama’s sycophantic legions of useful idiots, fiction trumps fact.

So what can Republicans do?

Plenty, if they are willing to fight fire with fire, and they better start igniting those precedents now. It’s going to take more than a threat of a lawsuit from House Speaker John Boehner.

House Republicans can use their control of the budget to defund enactment and enforcement of Obama’s lawless orders and regulations. Indeed, if they fail to do so, then they violate their own oaths “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, and Rule of Law becomes gravely imperiled by rule of men.

Of course, if Republicans don’t act, and we continue racing down this imperialist path to tyranny, there are tens of millions of American Patriots who understand our options.

Having recently celebrated Independence Day, I invite you to re-read the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable treatise on Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” addressed an imperial executive who willfully violated that endowment “which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled” all people.

Our Founders outlined the “injuries and usurpations” committed by the executive, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” They noted, “He has refused his Assent to Laws … He has obstructed the Administration of Justice … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”

There are undeniable parallels between the imperial powers which gave rise to the American Revolution and the imperial presidency which now threatens the Liberty our Founders, and generations of American Patriots since, have defended with their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.”

Obama now jokes about his lawlessness: “It is lonely, me just doing stuff. … I’m just telling the truth now. I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip.”

In other words, short of rigorous intervention by Congress, this gets much worse before it gets any better.

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

_____________________________

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!

Please fill out the form below or click here to donate by mail.

Independence Day [Message]

I subscribe to the online periodical The Patriot Post. It’s free and so far totally independent of advertisements and totally dependent on the gracious support of free will donations. Thus before I go further I highly encourage you to send some money to keep the fount of Patriotism operating as a source of Conservative Liberty and a promoter of the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers.

Since I am on The Patriot Post email list every year around Independence Day I get an email that links to an Independence Day message. I am fairly certain that oft times it is the same message because it is so well written and is quite timelessly relevant. I may have even cross posted it more than once. Guess what, I am doing it again – today.

JRH 7/4/14

*******************************************

Independence Day

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

Amid all the contemporary political and cultural contests, too many conservatives fail to make the case for overarching eternal truths — whether in debate with adversaries across the aisles of Congress, or with neighbors across Main Street.

Lost in the din is the foundational endowment of Essential Liberty, and any debate that does not begin with this eternal truth will end with temporary deceits.

The most oft-cited words from our Declaration of Independence are these: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The eternal assertion that Liberty for all people is “endowed by their Creator” and is thus “unalienable” should require no defense, because “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” and because the rights of man are irrevocable from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

But the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny — or, in political parlance, between Right and left — is the contest to assert who endows Liberty — God or man.

Contemporary Leftist protagonists seek to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. This is because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the giver of Liberty.

The history of man, since its first record, has repeatedly and tragically documented that when the people settle for the assertion that government is the source of their rights, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tyrants always attempt to undermine Liberty by driving a wedge between it and its foundational endowment by our Creator.

For generations, American liberals have driven that wedge by asserting that our Constitution provides a “wall of separation” between church and state. But does it?

The short answer is “yes,” but it is most certainly not the faux wall constructed by judicial activists, who have grossly adulterated the plain language of our First Amendment especially during the last 50 years.

Contrary to what many liberals would have us believe, the words “wall of separation between church and state” do not appear in our Constitution — nor is this notion even implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an obscure 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to concerns about Connecticut’s establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling the Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a “national church,” but he concluded rightly that the Constitution prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments — a “wall of separation,” if you will, between federal and state governments.

The “wall of separation” argument is thus a phony one. Indeed, it is a blueprint for tyranny.

We are created, from the beginning, in the Image of God, and that image is the essence of Liberty, the well of all rights for all people for all time.

Our enlightened Founders, in their revolutionary opposition to tyranny, looked far beyond kings and parliaments to the enduring source of the rights of man, and they enumerated in our Declaration of Independence that we are, indeed, created in God’s Image for His purpose, and that no man could strip that endowment from the soul of another. Thus, we have the equal capacity to be free, personal, rational, creative and moral beings, and we are entitled to be so through His endowment.

These rights and freedoms were further enshrined in our Constitution.

In 1776, John Hancock wrote of Jacob Duché, the first Chaplain appointed by the Continental Congress, “Congress … from a consideration of your … zealous attachment to the rights of America, appoint(s) you their Chaplain.” Duché, Pastor of Philadelphia’s Christ Church, captured the spirit of the American Revolution, saying, “Civil liberty is as much the gift of God in Christ Jesus … as our spiritual freedom… ‘Standing fast’ in that liberty, wherewith Christ, as the great providential Governor of the world, hath made us free.”

It is in that spirit that we at The Patriot Post adopted our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit — “The Truth Will Set You Free” (John 8:32). That is the essence of the assertion that we are “endowed by our Creator” with life and Liberty.

Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the rights of man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots. As Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Indeed, the “Cycle of Democracy” demands this tonic. And despite the pervasive assault on Liberty by the current legions of Leftist NeoComs, to paraphrase the great Prussian military historian, theorist and tactician Carl von Clausewitz, “the best defense is a good offense.”

Our Founders closed their Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

In his 1800 letter to fellow Declaration signer Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Like millions of our generation’s American Patriots, I have sworn likewise. We must never forsake our Sacred Honor.

No matter what setbacks we face, Liberty is an eternal endowment. Thus, we must hold the lines on defense, and regroup for relentless attack on offense.

Never lose faith, fellow Patriots!

In honor of this anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, contemplate these wise words of our Founders, and please consider supporting The Patriot Post’s mission in defense of Liberty.

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.” –George Washington

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” –John Adams

“May every citizen … have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of the declaration recorded in the Bible, ‘Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed.'” –Samuel Adams

“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” –Benjamin Franklin

“The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.” –James Madison

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

“But where says some is the king of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. … [L]et it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.” –Thomas Paine in Common Sense

_________________________________

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!

You Might Be a Conservative If…

Last week I cross posted Mark Alexander’s “You Might Be a Liberal If…” which was a list with links profiling America’s deluded Left. Ergo I feel compelled to post this week’s Alexander post “You Might Be a Conservative If...”

Just as an aside yesterday I urged readers to place Danny Jeffrey’s Fix Bayonets Library on their resource list to be armed with information to confront Leftists ruining America. This Mark Alexander Post should also serve as a resource to counter Leftists with Conservative Principles that keep America good.

JRH 4/10/14

*********************************

You Might Be a Conservative If…

And Especially If…

By Mark Alexander

Email sent: 4/9/2014 1:07 PM

Link date: Apr. 9, 2014

“Our conflict is not likely to cease so soon as every good man would wish. The measure of iniquity is not yet filled; and unless we can return a little more to first principles, and act a little more upon patriotic ground, I do not know when it will…” –George Washington (1779)

As a follow-up to my profile on the attributes of contemporary liberals, “You Might Be a Liberal If…,” I offer this look at the attributes associated with today’s conservatives.

Too often, political “Left v Right” labels are applied without conveying anything substantive about the beliefs or worldviews of the individual upon whom the label has been conferred.

So what’s in a name?

To answer that question, I’ve reviewed my own lists of conservative principles in order to better profile those who identify as “conservative.” Again, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

You Might Be a Conservative If You…

…know the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men – Liberty and tyranny.

…embody the real spirit of Patriots’ Day.

…still “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

…believe George Washington is the quintessential model for presidential character.

…never lose sight of what’s Good and Right about America.

…would still give your life and fortune in defense of First Principles.

…fully understand that Liberty is endowed by our Creator.

…hold sacred your oath “to support and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

…know what “E Pluribus Unum” actually means.

…are a genuine American Patriot.

…believe that Liberty is colorblind and not a “white thing.”

…respect and abide by the plain language of our Constitution.

…understand the principle of Constitutional Federalism as reiterated by President Reagan’s executive order on Federalism.

…know that the Second Amendment makes all other rights possible.

…refuse to allow the Democrat Leftists to sell out the Second Amendment by international treaty.

…know that “gun free zones” are actually free-fire zones for mass murderers.

…observe the true meaning of Memorial Day rather than heading to the mall for a great sale.

…honor our nation’s noble Veteran Patriots.

…think that Barack Hussein Obama and his NeoCom cadres are the greatest national security threat to American Liberty and our constitutional republic.

…recognize that ideological socialists have hijacked the once-noble Democratic Party.

…see the election of an utterly unqualified and inexperienced “community organizer” to the most powerful office in the world as proof of how profoundly naive and unserious the American public can be.

…are aware of Barack Obama’s history as a lifelong Marxist.

…find Obama’s ethnocentric America-hating theology antithetical to Liberty.

…credit the foreign policy fecklessness of our current president for having enabled the “Russian Spring.”

…still want John Kerry indicted for treason.

…are proud of, rather than ashamed of, our nation’s heritage of faith.

…abhor the oppression of our First Amendment rights to religious expression by DoD and other government agencies.

…reject the Leftist assertion that “faith and politics don’t mix.”

…know that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in our Constitution, neither in text or spirit.

…understand that fatherhood is the foundation of Liberty.

…stand firm in defense of Judeo-Christian principles when confronted with the homosexual agenda.

…refuse to tolerate the Rainbow Mafia’s intolerance of divergent views, as with the recent persecution of Phil Robertson and Brendan Eich.

…don’t hesitate to offer others a “blessed Thanksgiving” or “Merry Christmas.”

…think protecting our borders is a national security issue, not a political football.

…understand that the 14th Amendment does not authorize citizenship for “anchor babies” and their kinfolk.

…know that profiling potential terrorists is more effective than randomly patting down children and 80-year-old grandmothers.

…know that al-Qa’ida is thriving despite Barack Obama’s claims to the contrary.

…created a lot of wealth but have not retired from the front lines of the fight for Liberty.

…believe that free enterprise always trumps socialism.

…know that the near-economic collapse in 2008 was rooted in Democrat economic policies initiated by Bill Clinton in 1994.

…know that America may one day look like Detroit if we continue to elect Democrat “leadership.”

…know that the words “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” are a euphemism for “statist tyranny.”

…recognize the addictive evil of the ObamaNation Poverty Plantations.

…prefer to give people a hand up rather than a hand out.

…see clearly the hypocrisy of Obama’s rhetoric about “income inequality” while he lives like a king on redistributed wealth.

…reject classism and socialist class warfare.

…acknowledge Barack Obama as the modern-day master of the “BIG Lie.”

…are at risk of being on Obama’s IRS Enemies List.

…know that narcissism and tyranny are political collaborators.

…recognize that ObamaCare must be dismantled or it will accelerate the collapse of free enterprise.

…are well aware that Obama’s outright lies about ObamaCare were politically calculated.

…are not among the Left’s cadres of Earth worshipers.

…reject the Left’s global warming hysteria and recognize the Left’s real agenda is regulating free enterprise.

…are aware that recent evidence indicates the Earth may be cooling, not warming.

…are outraged by the Obama administration’s alteration of the Benghazi talking points in order to protect Obama’s foreign policy image ahead of the 2012 election.

…understand that “tolerance and diversity” are Leftist shorthand for “tyranny.”

…recognize race-baiting political hustlers for what they are.

…know that Barack Obama’s Leftmedia sycophants are perpetuating a fraud when they pretend to be “journalists.”

…view all violence against innocent victims as a “hate crime.”

…object to the Leftmedia blackout of black-on-white crime, which is statistically far more frequent than white-on-black crime.

…see the bankruptcy and desperation of the Democrat Party reflected its choice of Bill Clinton as its spokesman.

…are aware that the GOP’s “establishment Republicans” are a key element in the Democrats’ current “divide and conquer” strategy.

…view fratricidal political infighting as the biggest obstacle to restoring Liberty and Constitutional integrity.

…honor the real spirit of the grassroots Tea Party Movement despite its shameful misrepresentation by the Leftmedia.

Support the 2014 Patriots’ Day Campaign

…understand that the model for restoring Liberty is Ronald Reagan and that our nation is at another Time for Choosing.

…appreciate what George Washington meant when he said, “Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

And finally, if you know that the most cost-effective way you can promote Essential Liberty, help restore constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and advocate for free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values, is to support The Patriot Post, you are most assuredly a Conservative – and a Patriot!

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

______________________________

From email:

*PUBLIUS*

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Support The Patriot Post:

o Donate Online

o Donate by Mail

About The Patriot Post

About Mark Alexander

You Might Be a Liberal If…

Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post uses the humor of a redneck comedian to poke a little fun at the idiocy of Liberals (in my opinion aka Left-Wing Nuts).

JRH 4/2/14

*********************************

You Might Be a Liberal If…

And Especially If…

By Mark Alexander

Email sent: 4/2/2014 1:07 PM

Webpage Date: Apr. 2, 2014

“[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own.” –George Washington (1795)

We use political labels all the time. Too often, though, we do so without conveying anything substantive about the beliefs or worldviews of the individual upon whom the label has been conferred.

So what’s in a name?

To answer that question, I’ve culled numerous lists of my own, and those submitted by colleagues, regarding the attributes of voters who identify as “Democrats.” With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, here are my favorite answers to:

You Might Be a Liberal If You…

…still have an “Obama 2012” bumper sticker on your car – right next to your “Obama 2008” bumper sticker.

…believe that achieving a record low percentage of Americans working, and record high percentage of Americans on food stamps and other “public assistance,” are indicators of a successful economic recovery model.

…feel that voter fraud is a form of “social justice.”

…are certain that any criticism of Obama is rooted in racism.

…believe Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are “journalists,” and everything on MTV and in the New York Times is “journalism.”

…look like “a deer in the headlights” if anyone mentions our Constitution because that is just “right-wing rhetoric.”

…rail against racial discrimination but staunchly support Affirmative Action.

…feel the grassroots Tea Party Movement is a collection of ignorant racists, but the “Occupy Wall Street” movement is a coalition of thoughtful and principled reformers.

…believe CNN and The New York Times are objective, but Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are biased.

…feel George Soros is a benevolent patriarch but the Koch brothers are evil incarnate.

…support redistribution of wealth, as long as it’s not your wealth.

…use hash tags like #hatewhitey, #taxtherich and #hateTEA on Twitter.

…believe that our Constitution is “living” but unborn children are not.

…are tolerant of diverse opinions as long as they do not divert from your own.

…want the government out of our bedrooms unless they’re providing free birth control and abortions.

…feel people who are opposed to the redefinition of marriage, as Barack Obama was when elected, are bigots.

…feel the free market is where one goes to collect government handouts.

…have no idea that Franklin Roosevelt’s “principle on taxation” was plagiarized from Karl Marx.

…still refer to Stalin as “Uncle Joe.”

…believe that Che Guevara is a saint.

…know more than one vegan.

…oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of convicted criminals, while supporting the death penalty for the most innocent of unborn children.

…believe the only absolute in life is a brand of vodka.

…have joined Al Gore’s cult of earth worshippers and feel “global warming” is all manmade.

…believe Oprah should be Obama’s running mate in his third term.

…believe the phrase “separation of Church and State” is in the Constitution.

…reject the “paper or plastic” question because you’re “bi-sacksual.”

…feel that an open border with Mexico will provide you job security.

…believe jihadist Muslims are misunderstood peaceniks but Christians are cutthroat terrorists.

…protest against state censorship unless it’s directed at anything “conservative.”

…feel it’s OK to require drug tests to keep a job but racist to require drug tests for welfare recipients.

…feel it’s OK to mandate IDs to withdraw your own money from your own bank while it’s racist to require IDs to vote.

…believe that making a “gun-like finger gesture” in elementary school is cause for expulsion while body guards for leftists should be armed to the teeth.

…believe that parents should provide permission slips for middle-school field trips but not abortion referrals.