German Media: Obama Reversed Course on Syrian Attack Due to "Mutiny" in the Ranks

Reports from around the world paint a picture of a military that has no interest in an attack on Syria. If these accounts can be believed, the military has effectively rejected Obama's meandering "red line".

• U.S. military mutiny forced Obama to retreat (German Economic News - via Google Translate):

The surprising over by U.S. President Barack Obama of his plans Syria is apparently due to a massive mutiny in the U.S. Army... So far, the U.S. military has always publicly silent and obey the orders of the military-political leadership. The basis for most applications, it was the president managed to convince the soldiers believe that the particular use of "national security" serve.

Even in the case of Syria, Obama tried this term... But his own soldiers did not believe him...

So said the retired Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold post: "The politicians are naive about the obligations that exist in foreign policy. Many are woefully ignorant about what can achieve a military operation. "Newbold was the leading cadres in the Iraq war. He said that many of his colleagues share his active serious concerns.

An officer who declined to comment anonymously, said: "I can not believe that the president ever takes this step into consideration. In the past 10 years we have been fighting against insurgents. Syria has advanced weapons systems. We would have to fight in a conventional war. "

Already in the past week had Gen. Martin Dempsey, the head of the commander in chief, pointed to the heedlessness of the Obama administration. He said the station ABC : "The simple use of weapons, without a precise strategy, such as the use is completed, probably never leads to the conclusion that we imagine."

General James Mattis said: "If the Americans actually perform such an operation, then that is a brutal, very, very serious war."

Another active officer said: "What political end state we want to achieve? Ch I do not know what it is. We say it should not be a regime change. If there is to be punishment - there are other ways to punish someone. "

• Obama's War on Syria: Dissent in the Ranks (Stephen Lendman, IndyMedia):

The Pentagon goes all out to avoid dissent in the ranks. It surfaced in Vietnam... Army officials admitted they couldn't account for over 1,400 officer and noncom deaths. Perhaps as many as one-fourth occurred at the hands of subordinates.

America was at war with itself. Everyone was the enemy. Officers at times fragged troops they suspected of planning to target them... Congressional hearings in 1973 estimated around 3% of officer and NCO deaths from fragging...

...America's heading for more war. Servicemen wonder when they'll all end. They bear the brunt of war's harshness.

The Washington Post headlined "US military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a US strike on Syria," saying:

Many in America's military have "serious reservations." They're "coping with the scars of two lengthy wars." They're uneasy now.

According to "interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general," they've had enough... They fear "potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria."

...Marine Lt. Colonel Gordon Miller warned about "potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of weapons attacks and a military response by Israel."

Military skepticism grows. Obama's rushing headlong into the breach. He's heading where angels fear to tread. He's mindless of potential fallout. Hindsight won't save thousands of lost lives.

In fact, World Tribune reports that "the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as many in the U.S. military command have opposed Obama’s directive to prepare for imminent air strikes on the regime of President Bashar Assad."

It would seem the U.S. military is exhibiting all the respect for the president that he has earned.


Hat tip: BB.

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

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


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

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

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

Well, phony scandals do not produce body bags.

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

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

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

Harzi came to the attention of U.S. intelligence investigators after he posted real-time information to a social media platform about the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi just as it was starting.

As Eli Lake reports in the Daily Beast, Harzi's brother is believed to be Tariq Abu Ammar, a mid-level planner for al-Qaida's franchise in Iraq. These days, Ammar's main job is arranging the travel of fighters from North Africa to Syria's al-Qaida-linked opposition.

As the Washington Free Beacon has reported, U.S. intelligence sources say Ansar al-Sharia is now running several training camps for jihadists destined for Syria in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, a port city further east.

The officials said the camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups. These include the al-Nusra Front, the most organized group fighting the Bashar Assad regime in Damascus. As we noted in June, Jabhat al-Nusra, with 7,000 fighters, is a branch of al-Qaida in Iraq that has publicly pledged allegiance to al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. It receives regular payments from al-Qaida in Iraq, and its goal is like that of a Middle Eastern caliphate.

In a revealing chart and article published by the Economist magazine, two of the three major fronts — the Syrian Islamic Front and the Syrian Liberation Front — are Islamist, as are 10 of the 12 identified rebel groups. We warned that arms destined for Syrian rebels would wind up in the hands of jihadists or al-Qaida backers.

All the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi seems to have accomplished is to make Libya a focal point for al-Qaida terrorist activity in North Africa. Two men believed to be Tunisians arrested on Aug. 3 carrying six passports, an AK-47 and foreign currency have provided some details of the camps.

The Tunisians stated that they were trained in small-arms use and were on their way to join Syrian rebels by traveling first to Benghazi, then Istanbul, and over land across Turkey and into northern Syria.

One of the men said he was an associate of Ansar al-Sharia's leader Sufian Ben Qumu, an al-Qaida terrorist released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007.

That the United States may soon be fighting alongside Ansar al-Sharia jihadists in Syria is an indictment of the Obama administration's clueless and recklessly naïve foreign policy and a slap in the face for the victims of Benghazi and their families.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily

The Shameless Hypocrisy of the Left on Syria, in Tweets

This:

RT @DraftRyan2016 .@AceofSpadesHQ We need to start this war to find out what's in it.

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 29, 2013

Read Jack Goldsmith on the soon-to-expand unilateral authority of the POTUS over military action abroad: http://t.co/fgbXdMxX9s

— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) August 28, 2013

Unreal. RT @Heminator: Helluva NYT headline: “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal” http://t.co/2pweVLZmi8

— RB (@RBPundit) August 29, 2013

The U.S. Has No Legal Basis to Intervene in Syria: http://t.co/k3quIKb07a

— Slate (@Slate) August 28, 2013

60% oppose Syrian intervention; about same % oppose Obamacare. Obama could invade Syria and export Obamacare from us to them #Compromise

— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) August 29, 2013

We care about people of the mideast so we're taking a moment from Syria bomb plans to sell cluster bombs 2 the Saudis http://t.co/TkwZD7pvNS

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) August 29, 2013

Aides say "Obama will not address the American people about the mission in Syria before hostilities commence" http://t.co/qMP04FORm9

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 29, 2013

Intelligence committees say they're not properly consulted... http://t.co/QH4eVCIwLt

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) August 29, 2013

Anyone in the press care to notice that Obama said in 2007 his current strategy with Syria wouldn’t work? http://t.co/v5PCOinkbX

— John Ekdahl, Jr. (@JohnEkdahl) August 28, 2013

Does your member of Congress believe Obama needs authorization before attacking Syria? View the list: http://t.co/41MbOrQGef via @MEPFuller

— Roll Call (@rollcall) August 28, 2013

Obama backs away from speedy Syria strike, after UK turnaround http://t.co/iFjHCPufQX

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) August 28, 2013

This is the first war ever organized through eVite. #Syria

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 28, 2013

Hey, remember when @JoeBiden vowed to impeach Bush if he struck Iran without Congressional approval? Good times. http://t.co/hft2JOiUgo

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 28, 2013

FINALLY: First Dog Bo Takes a Well-Deserved Vacation

Well, I can rest easy tonight knowing that Bo is enjoying the kind of posh vacation that most Americans can only dream of.

Americans can go to bed with a story to warm the cockles of their hearts tonight. First Dog Bo has been successfully transported to join the First Family on their well-deserved vacation on Martha's Vineyard.

...Bo was transported from Washington to the island on board a specially modified Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey. For security reasons similar to those of Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama and First Dog Bo cannot travel on the same aircraft, thus making a separate flight necessary...

In the event of an emergency involving the President, I believe the current Continuity of Government plan calls for Bo to assume the presidency, followed by Harry Reid, then Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and then -- if memory serves -- Madonna.

I didn't see Biden on the list, but be sure to read the article and double-check my math.

Bin Laden's Dead and So Is Detroit

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Bankruptcy: The fundamental transformation of Detroit is complete, as socialism's theme park succumbs to government run amok, a reminder that government isn't the solution to our problems but their cause.

The wisdom of President Reagan's words have been lost under an administration that believes government is the entity from which all blessings flow. So has Margaret Thatcher's observation that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Last Oct. 13, President Obama boasted in a weekly address about the bailed-out auto industry that, "We refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. I bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later that bet is paying off in a big way."

Less than a year later, the American auto industry is indeed surviving, bolstered largely by a Ford that refused government assistance and foreign transplants located in right-to-work states. Even General Motors has been forced to pay the free market some lip service, lest its customers go elsewhere, even as it accepts Chevy Volt subsidies.

Detroit, however, is dead, and unions and government killed it. Michigan recently became a right-to-work state, but it was too late to save a city that had become beholden to unions. As the United Auto Workers helped destroy the auto industry in and around Detroit, it's no accident that Mercedes-Benz decided to build its flagship SUV in a shiny new facility in Vance, Ala.

Labor overhead was an albatross around Detroit's neck. Until recently, total pay and benefits for a full-time worker at the Big Three averaged $140,000 a year vs. $80,000 for their foreign competitors. Add an estimated $2,000-plus per car for retiree health care and pensions for the Big Three, and you wonder not why Detroit failed, but why it didn't fail sooner.

Detroit's response to a declining business climate was more taxes, fewer city services and bloated pensions for workers in the only growth area — government.

The city's $11 billion in unsecured debt includes $6 billion in health and other retirement benefits and $3 billion in retiree pensions for its 20,000 city pensioners, members of the public sector unions that helped bring Detroit to its knees.

In the face of government incompetence, it was the people of Detroit who went on strike. Detroit lost a quarter-million residents between 2000 and 2010. A population that in the 1950s teemed with 1.8 million is struggling to stay above 700,000. Much of the middle-class and scores of businesses also have fled, taking their tax dollars with them.

Detroit is the rotten fruit of uncontested progressive socialism. In 1960, Detroit had the highest per capita income in the U.S.; today, it's the poorest of our large cities. An estimated 78,000 of the city's homes are unoccupied, and in 2011 half the occupiers of its 305,000 properties did not pay any tax. Some 40% of the street lights do not work.

Detroit has 264,209 households, and 91,204 — or 34.5% — get food stamps. Only 54.3% of Detroit residents participate in the labor force. This is how America is beginning to look. If we continue down President Obama's path, America will become Detroit, only with a press to print money.

Indeed, the scary part is that Detroit is what Obama wants to fundamentally transform America into: a place where wealth is redistributed, not created, and where government picks winners and losers in an economy in which we all ultimately lose.

Speaking at Ohio State University in May, he told graduates not to listen to "voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems."

Detroit didn't. We should.


Follow @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

BIDEN: Corn Syrup, Coal Power More Dangerous Than Terrorism

Mr. Peabody, set the Wayback Machine to 2007.

BILL MAHER: Senator Biden, forgetting about the upcoming Iowa Caucus for just a moment, which would you honestly say is more like to contribute to the death of your average American: a terrorist strike, high-fructose corn syrup, or air that has too much coal in it?


BIDEN: Air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack, but that is not to diminish in any way the fact that a terrorist attack is real. It is not an existential threat to bringing down the country, but it does have the capacity still to kill thousands of people. But hundreds of thousands of people die and their lives are shortened because of coal plants, coal-fired plants, and because of corn syrup.

One. Heartbeat. Away. From. The. Presidency.

Stand up, Chuck!


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Top 15 #DayOfResistance Photos You Will Never See in Democrat Media

Spotted on Twitter:


Phoenix


Denver


Little Rock, Arkansas


Dallas


West Chester, Ohio


Ventura, California


Sacramento, California


San Diego, California


Westminster, California


Pacifica, California


Ventura, California


Dallas


Dayton, Ohio


Red Lion, Pennsylvania


Somewhere cold
Anyone with other photos, please email them to me. I'll post any good ones as updates.


Update:


Morristown, Pennsylvania


Upstate New York


Update II: Pics from Reno, Nevada (thanks, Tiffiny -- who says 2,000 braved cold weather to rally):




Update III:


Utah State Capitol

Sacramento, CA

Update IV: Pics from Atlanta (thanks, Elisabeth!):




Update V: Tyler, Texas (thanks, Kenneth):






Update VI: NEW COMIC STRIP: Hitler Finds Out About the Nationwide #DayOfResistance Rallies.

PATRIOTS: America's Sheriffs Are Standing Tall Against the Left's Full-Throated Attack on the Constitution

Thankful for...

∆ Champaign County Sheriff: The problem isn’t guns or magazines, it’s the mentally ill:

Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh has weighed in on the hysterical call by Democratic Party leaders to ban guns, limit magazine capacities and impose all sorts of other restrictions both in Springfield and in Washington, D.C. ... While he doesn’t come out and say he’s not going to enforce further gun bans, he does cover a number of points that are just common sense around here:

• Right to carry will deter crime.
• America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15, isn’t criminally misused around here.
• Magazine capacity isn’t an issue.
• Cops here, including him, support law-abiding citizens’ right to carry and possess firearms of all sorts.
• The real problem for his department is mental health issues.

∆ NY Sheriff’s PBA blasts Cuomo, Legislature over NY SAFE:

...Our objections to the legislation are numerous and begin with the process under which the bill was voted on in the Senate. It is deeply disturbing to our membership, as public servants and Citizens of the state of New York, the manner in which this legislation was brought to the Senate for vote...

...It is our understanding that many Senators had approximately 20 minutes to read the legislation before being forced to vote on it and note that the bill was brought before the Senate and voted on so quickly that its authors failed to make provisions for the exemption of police officers or the National Guard with respect to the new magazine-capacity requirements. Having reviewed the legislation and given the time constraints, it is our conclusion that there is no possible way any normal person could have read the entire bill and understood its implications prior to voting on it. They most certainly could not have requested and received the input of their constituency and considered their opinions in the matter which is the most basic tenet of a representative government. The entire process was one of secrecy and of intentional withholding of information from the public. We condemn this in the harshest terms. Had there been an opportunity for the public to exercise their right to be involved in the legislative process prior to the bill being voted upon, We would have offered a letter of opposition. Instead, we find ourselves in the rather unique position of opposing legislation after it has been passed. Our membership believes we were denied one of the most basic rights of a democracy by this process and we cannot and will not accept this type of behavior from our
elected officials...

...The SCSDPBA reminds the addressees that “assault weapons,” which are banned under the new legislation if they have 1 military­-type feature, were responsible for 5 out of 769 homicides in New York last year or .007% – hardly a public safety crisis for our state... While it may come as a surprise to the authors of the legislation, most semi-automatic pistols do in fact come with a pistol grip, making nearly every semi-automatic pistol an assault weapon and thus subject to registration on a yearly basis...

...In recent days, we have also become aware of published reports describing a large and growing movement within our state of citizens who have apparently announced their intention of non-compliance with the new statutes as they relate to assault weapons and registration. With an estimated 1 million assault rifles in existence throughout New York, it is beyond comprehension that the legislature and the Governor would needlessly place police officers in a position where they might be called upon to confiscate the previously lawfully owned property of an American citizen. There can be no denying the potential danger this prospect places law enforcement in and once again strongly suggests a bill that was rushed to passage without aforethought or any regard for its potential implications. We cannot excuse this and do not appreciate our very safety being sacrificed for political gain.

∆ Milwaukee Sheriff: Calling 911, Waiting Not Best Option for Defense:

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. has released a 30 second public announcement calling on the citizens of Milwaukee to familiarize themselves with a firearm and aid the police in defending life between the time they dial 911 and the time the police arrive.

∆ Colorado: Sheriffs Say No to Proposed Gun Control:

Late last week, the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC) drew a line in the sand in defense of the Second Amendment, telling elected officials in the Centennial State that they will not support any of the proposed gun restrictions.

These devoted public servants understand better than most the efforts necessary to preserve and advance public safety interests for the community as a whole. The CSOC also made it clear in their statement that they welcome dialogue, in the wake of recent tragedies, that relates to protecting the public. However, they ardently assert that they “…do not believe these tragedies should be used as the backdrop to advance gun control legislation.”

The CSOC specifically cited their direct opposition to the gun grabbing efforts in Denver, being led by extremist organizations like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" (MAIG). The so-called “common sense” measures being weighed by these out-of-town extremists include a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, arbitrary limitations on magazine capacities, the ban on bulk purchases of ammunition, a statewide database for concealed carry permit holders, unnecessarily restrictive mental health checks and the criminalization of law-abiding citizens through the prohibition of private firearms transfers.

∆ Sheriffs Push Back on Obama Gun Control:

More than 90 sheriffs from mostly rural counties say they won't enforce what they deem unconstitutional gun laws from the Obama administration or Congress... The sheriffs sent open letters to President Obama and began a media effort to "stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measures being taken," according to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association... The Texas-based group released a list of 90 sheriffs who oppose Obama's gun-control efforts. The list includes sheriffs from more than 20 states as well as sheriff's associations in Utah and New Mexico.

∆ Utah sheriffs pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

∆ Kentucky Sheriff Vows to Uphold Constitution, Not New Gun Control Laws:

Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman has some advice for federal officials attempting to confiscate legal guns held by citizens in his jurisdiction: “go ahead, make my day.” ... “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold,” Peyman said. “Let them pull that stuff in other places if they want, but not in Jackson County, Kentucky.”

∆ Oregon Sheriff Says Won’t Enforce Un-Constitutional Gun Laws:

An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional... “We are Americans,” Mueller wrote. “We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws... In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians."

I applaud these patriots and am thankful for their service and loyalty to the Constitution. If only our legislators possessed such integrity.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN NEW YORK LAW ENFORCEMENT: An Unconstitutional Law Ain't a Law

Norton v. Shelby County - 118 U.S. 425 (1886):

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

To my brothers and sisters serving in New York law enforcement:

Without public input from stakeholders, without any review from voters, and without discussion in a single public forum, the governor of New York and the state legislature slammed into place one of the nation's most restrictive gun laws yesterday.

The new laws classify more semiautomatic rifles as so-called assault weapons [thereby banning them], requires many gun owners to renew their licenses every five years, increases the regularity of background checks and makes it illegal to own ammunition magazines with more than seven rounds... Some gun-control advocates said the legislation gave New York the nation's most stringent firearms laws.

In fact, this law not only violates the Constitution's Second Amendment, the Supreme Court confirmed that fact just a handful of years ago when it ruled the District of Columbia's gun ban was unlawful.

In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."

The ruling was affirmed the following year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said that citizens were guaranteed a right to keep firearms that were in common use in their homes for self-defense, but that the government could pass reasonable regulations concerning firearms and ammunition.

...Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

New York's new law bans guns that are "in common use" and passes unreasonable restrictions on magazines (try to find a seven-round magazine just for grins).

The plain language of the Heller decision renders New York's restrictions unconstitutional.

In Oregon, for instance, multiple sheriffs have told the federal government that any unconstitutional restrictions on guns will not be enforced:

Another Oregon sheriff says he would refuse to enforce any new federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional... Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley said Tuesday he sent the same letter to Vice President Joe Biden that was sent Monday by Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller.

The letter says politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims in the Connecticut school shooting by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans.

Hensley told KTVZ he believes in the Second Amendment, and he says officials should consider other factors that may have a role in mass shootings, such as violent video games.

Cuomo has violated his oath of office. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he lied. His flatly unconstitutional gun ban law is proof that he has violated his oath of office.

I encourage you to listen to Cuomo's "State of the State" speech, if only for a minute or two.

The speech was praised as groundbreaking and landmark by progressives who fretted for two years that they were fooled by the son of liberal icon Mario Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo, they thought, had fashioned himself a new kind of Democrat focused on holding the line on spending and taxes.

"We are a community based on progressive principles," Cuomo said in Wednesday's often fiery speech. "We must remain that progressive capital of the nation."

Go ahead and listen. Don't worry, I'll wait here.

At the risk of violating Godwin's law, I want you to close your eyes and transport yourself back to Germany in 1933 and imagine this same speech.

The hysterical rhetoric, the shrieking dialect, the fomenting of panic, the over-the-top lies, and the demonization of a large, law-abiding segment of the population.

The progressive movement is at war with the Constitution.

No self-described "progressive" can honestly take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The two philosophies are oil and water.

Cuomo's unconstitutional gun control laws hold no weight and should therefore be given all of the regard they deserve. Which is to say, none.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: What can you do? This.

Easy steps to protect your Second Amendment rights:

1. Join the National Rifle Assocation - by no means perfect, the NRA is the most influential gun rights group in the world. The easiest step to help fund basic protections for the Second Amendment is to join the NRA.

2. Gun Owners of America - a no-nonsense gun rights organization with a strong lobbying presence in Washington.

3. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership - welcomes all law-abiding citizens and offers some of the best educational material about the Constitution and the Second Amendment you'll find anywhere.

4. The Second Amendment Foundation - provides legal action, education, and an attorney referral service for law-abiding gun owners.

No organization is perfect and each group has its strengths and weaknesses. If you can afford to, join all of them. Each one of us, working with these groups, can make a difference.

MEMO TO HOUSE REPUBLICANS: Start drafting Articles of Impeachment in case of lawless debt ceiling hike

The primary tenet at the heart of the United States Constitution is a concept known as Separation of Powers. It allocates the various responsibilities of government between branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The Framers of the Constitution, James Madison primary among them, studied the writings of many great legal philosophers in dividing responsibilities such that each branch of government could check the corrupting ambitions of the others.

According to Madison, no philosopher was more critical to the design of Constitutional separations than the French nobleman and legal expert Charles-Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu.

Montesquieu had studied the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. He believed that a properly designed government, in order to prevent tyranny, would require three branches of government. He wrote, "If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since 'constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it … it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power' . This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government... [to prevent any one] from acting tyrannically."

THE POWER OF THE PURSE

The Constitution bestows upon Congress "the Power of the Purse". Indiana University's Center on Congress describes congressional power as:

...its ability to set the spending and taxing policies of the nation. Not one dime can be spent from the federal Treasury without the approval of Congress. The determination of the budget by Congress is usually the most important political process of any year, partly because of its size (approaching $2 trillion) and partly because it is the principal means by which government establishes its priorities.

No serious constitutional scholar would ever claim that Congress did not possess complete control over the country's taxing and spending policies.

Of course, this paragraph was written before the Harry Reid- and Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats took control of Congress and have steadfastly refused to pass budgets since the election of Barack Obama.

DEMOCRATS LOBBY FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

The unofficial public relations agency for the Democrat Party is a website called Politico. A few days ago, it printed a letter from Democrat Congressional leaders that called for the president to unilaterally and unlawfully raise the debt ceiling, thereby precipitating a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats are putting new pressure on the White House to circumvent Congress to boost the nation’s debt ceiling if no bipartisan agreement can be reached.

In a strongly worded letter to President Barack Obama obtained by POLITICO, Reid and his leadership team argue that failing to raise the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States. Reid and Sens. Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray asserted that Obama “must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage.”

Of course, as anyone with an iota of common sense knows, the full faith and credit of the United States is not at risk should the debt ceiling remain at its current level.

THE MYTH OF GOVERNMENT DEFAULT

Writing at Friday's Wall Street Journal, David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey explain "The Myth of Government Default".

Contrary to White House claims, Congress's refusal to permit new borrowing by raising the debt ceiling limit will not trigger a default on America's outstanding public debt, with calamitous consequences for our credit rating and the world's financial system...

[...Section 4 of the 14th Amendment] means that a failure to raise the debt ceiling—to prevent new borrowing—does not and cannot put America's current creditors at risk. So long as this government exists, and barring a further constitutional amendment, those creditors must be paid.

Nor are they at risk in practice, since the federal government's roughly $200 billion in tax revenue per month is more than sufficient to service existing debts. If the executive chose to act irresponsibly and unconstitutionally and failed to make any debt payments when they come due, debt-holders would be able to go to the Court of Federal Claims and promptly obtain a money judgment.

These basic facts should inform any credible decisions by credit-rating agencies in establishing the government's creditworthiness. Significantly, these agencies have traditionally acted favorably when heavily indebted countries have not defaulted on their debt but cut deeply their public spending.

In short, the Constitution does not authorize the president to borrow or spend a single dime without congressional approval and it requires the executive to service its debt first. And each month many times the amount needed for that purpose arrives in the federal government's coffers.

WHY PREPARE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?

On many occasions over the past four years, the President Obama has demonstrated a callous disregard for the Constitution.

The publication of a Democrat press release by Politico indicates that a full court public relations campaign is underway to market the idea that the president's unilateral action to raise the debt ceiling would be lawful.

It is not.

In fact, such an act would -- in one instant -- strip Congress of its primary power while simultaneously gutting a huge swath of the Constitution. It would eradicate the separation of powers and precipitate the most significant constitutional crisis in American history.

In 2006, the very same Democrat leaders who now advocate unlawful borrowing and spending by the President all voted against raising the debt ceiling just seven years ago.

On March 16, 2006, the Senate held a vote on a measure to raise the debt ceiling by $781 billion — the fourth such vote of George W. Bush’s presidency. Republicans controlled the Senate, and Democrats spent much of the debate railing against Bush’s spending. “When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records,” said Reid. “The three largest deficits in our nation’s history have all occurred under this administration’s watch.”

Declaring themselves outraged by such spending, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray all voted against raising the debt limit. So did every other Democrat — including Sen. Barack Obama.

One can only imagine what would have happened had George W. Bush attempted to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval.

Should Barack Obama attempt such an unlawful act, the House of Representatives must act. It must protect its power of the purse, it must protect the Constitution, and it must put an end to this president's long train of abuses and usurpations.