Archive for the ‘Leftists’ Category

A stupid op-ed from WaPo:

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”

Which is as stupid today as it was then.  Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation.  Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.

…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria.  Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s.  As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:

Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.

The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today.  The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist.  While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes.  The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power.  With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.

Quit Stalin' and get countin'!It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:

Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.

Economically, people were suffering under it.  And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.

H

Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat).  The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.

Zimmerman finishes:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Translation:

“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party.  Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years.  The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life.  Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader.  Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”

That’s the real crux of it.

Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy.  In his time, it would work.  In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.

Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism.  Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”

Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”

-

Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more.  Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.

From Breitbart:

When Siskiyou County, CA Sheriff John Lopey tried to buy an M1 Garand rifle through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), he was denied and told he failed to pass the background check conducted via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Lopey is a sheriff: he carries a gun and enforces the law for a living. Prior to being a sheriff, he spent 33 years with the California Highway Patrol and is a retired Army Colonel. He had Top Secret clearance in the Army.

The FBI handles NICS background checks for firearms purchases. Ironically, Lopey recently went through and passed a background check to attend the FBI national academy.

Very interesting, since he’d bought guns within the past year and had no problems.  But then there’s the fact that he’s not very politically popular with the left and the Obama administration, mostly for opposing tyrannical environmental regulations that are destroying his county and region.

He holds ideas that are very unpopular with the current regime and has openly stated them at Support Rural America town hall meetings:

RED BLUFF — Sheriffs from nine Northern California counties on Saturday blasted government regulations and public agencies that, they said, have devastated their counties.

We were sworn to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It seems we have more enemies that are domestic these days,” said Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff. “There is a movement to destroy rural America as we know it.”

His pro-rural America, anti-fedgov-leviathan stance is one he holds pretty consistently:

Standing tall and trim in a dark suit and tie, Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey grimly delivers his message of resistance, warning of state and federal regulators moving to usurp control of local resources and constitutional rights.

“We’re in a fight to preserve our heritage, way of life, economy, public safety, health and the welfare of the citizens and the freedoms we hold dear,” he tells meeting rooms packed with his law enforcement peers and their constituents. “This is serious business folks.”

That specific statement went out to an audience of about 300 at a September gathering of sheriffs in Josephine County, Ore., one of more than a half-dozen such public meetings during the past year where Lopey’s remarks have been greeted with approving applause.

“We sheriffs have recognized that some agencies and several special interest groups are using money, influence, politics, regulations and sometimes lies to push an extremist agenda which threatens to literally destroy rural America and our way of life,” he said.

This Huffpo piece names Lopey as one of the left’s most-hated sheriffs in the nation (right next to Joe Arpaio), but the comments are much more informative about the condition of northern California than the Huffpo propaganda.

You can also just consider what Lopey has to say about the Second Amendment and consider if that might make him unpopular with the fedgov.

-

Now, it’s just speculation that he’d be targeted, hence the “tin foil” tag… but given that the IRS, the ATF, and numerous other fedgov agencies have specifically targeted Obama administration opponents and continue to do so all lends credence to the idea.

From UK Daily Mail:

Responding to an angry constituent’s letter about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama allegedly used a sexually charged derogatory term referring to members of the Tea Party movement.

Thomas Ritter, a fifth-grade school teacher from Irving, Texas, has sent the president a note criticizing Obamacare – the controversial law offering health care to the uninsured, which has become the butt of jokes following a disastrous launch last month.

‘This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment… The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed,’ the Texas man wrote to the commander-in-chief.

“Allegedly”… in his own handwriting:

obama teabagger letter 1obama teabagger letter 2

There are a couple things here to really look at.

The first is that he casually tosses around the term “teabagger”, because as Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir notes – he’s either using it to annoy the guy who wrote the letter further, or Obama’s in a bubble where everyone uses it, so it means nothing to him.

The second is that he equates “teabagger” as being on the same level as socialist as name-calling.  “Teabagger” is a pejorative description given by leftists to Tea Partiers, referencing “teabagging”, which if you don’t know what it is, well, here’s a hint:

dog tennis balls

Because people who want limitations on government, less government spending on wasteful programs, reduction of regulation and government interference in business and private life, and in general prefer a government that respects the individual and leaves them alone are of course synonymous with this:

dog tennis balls 2

Socialist isn’t an insult, yet the president puts it in quotes to imply that it is.  It’s a description of an ideology and political philosophy.  It’s what someone who favors more government and more government interference in private life believes in.  Things like government controlling certain aspects of the market for “the greater good”, and government “spreading the wealth around” are all socialist ideals.

Of course the president knows this, but much like Hillary saying in 2007 or so that she didn’t thing of herself as a liberal but as a “modern progressive”, it’s because the American people understand on an intrinsic level that socialism is bad – it’s anathema to the American way of life, and people who live under socialist rule quickly find out it’s not something they like.  (The same is very true of Progressives, but most folks don’t think of Progressives as the vile war-mongering alcohol-prohibitionist eugenicists they were – it’s a name game.)  People who on the surface are socially lefty and like the idea of government doing one thing or another rapidly get sick of it when they find out they can’t buy raw milk, or can’t order foie gras, or find out there are regulations on their own behaviors that they object to.  There are those who really are socialists and believe that “the greater good” means restricting people from 20 oz sodas, but even the brainwashed modern liberal begins to see that this stuff is tyranny.  And the casual modern liberal suddenly sees that socialism isn’t liberal at all.

Which all goes to why Obama is mocking the term socialist.  He puts it in quotes and equates it to “teabagger” because he’s trying to maximize criticisms of his critics while walking himself towards the middle by saying his own socialist policies aren’t “socialist” and those are just names thrown around by partisans.  Saying he’s a socialist isn’t namecalling – it’s looking at his history, statements, policies and deeds and saying he is what he is.

That’s why to him, it’s okay to force people to buy health insurance, and for government to create winners and losers – because socialists believe that some people shouldn’t win and other people shouldn’t lose – so they’ll use the government’s gun to the heads of the successful to pay for the mistakes of the unsuccessful – thereby harming both parties by subsidizing failure and disincentivizing success.

Everyone loses except the socialist, who is the fair redistributor.  If you’re a socialist, it’s much more convenient to use Alinksy’s rule of mockery to make fun of people for calling you a socialist – so they won’t recognize you for what you are.

House Majority whip Republican Kevin McCarthy of California says amnesty is going to happen.

Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis “My Only Loyalty Is To Illegal Aliens” Gutierrez says Republicans are telling him amnesty will happen.

“When I talk to my Republican friends,” Gutierrez said, “[they tell me] all of the parts will lead to the full package.”

He made his comments on Al Jazeera America’s Inside Story on Friday. Gutierrez has called Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) his “ally” in his quest for amnesty and has praised Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as well. He emphasized that he, like President Barack Obama, does not care if immigration reform is “in parts and pieces as long as in the end, there is a full menu.”

Last week, President Barack Obama said of the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate, “If they want to chop that thing up in five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like. Then, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that immigration reform was “absolutely not” dead.

Note Gutierrez was going to Al Jazeera to brag.  And let’s not forget that Paul “Screech” Ryan is so much a RINO that Tanzanian poachers hang out by his house.

Joe Biden’s been hanging out with illegal alien supporters on the national mall, and Pelosi’s willing to let the GOP surrender inch by inch.

Meanwhile, billionaire Mark “Here’s A Tip – I’m Rich So Screw You” Zuckerberg has decided he’s going to flaunt immigration law by hosting “hackathons” with illegal aliens while telling you that it’s a civil right for someone else to break into your house and thereby it becomes their civil right to sleep in your bed.  After all, being a citizen of one nation doesn’t mean you don’t have a civil right to the goods, services, and privileges of another nation.  He’s also funding propaganda to support the right of invaders to live in your house, and telling the agents who are tasked with your protection by enforcing immigration law “screw you”.  (Standby for our Facebook page vanishing if JBH cross-posts it there.)

Nice to know that somebody who made billions in the US market is ready to try to destroy the nation.  And of course he won’t listen to ICE agents about illegal aliens and why we’d want to screen people for admission coming into the country.  He’s a billionaire.  He’s the Ruling Class through and through.  He’s not going to get his store robbed by some gangster illegal alien from the Ukraine, or shanked by a “gardener” illegal alien who was hacking people up with machetes during the El Sal civil war.

He’s going to get cheap labor for programming while he ditches American workers.  Democrats get free votes, Republicans get cheap labor.  The American citizenry, legal immigrants, legal residents, and everyone who played by the rules and believes in the rule of law gets screwed.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

It’s a well-known leftist tactic to change the language once something’s been exposed.  In the early 20th century, the left called themselves “progressives”.  When the public got sick of eugenics, prohibition and mass murder, they decided to call themselves “liberals”, despite being anything but liberal.  When “liberal” began to get a bad name, they called themselves “progressives” again (note everything in that video is HRC denying that progressive and modern liberals are all big government, top-down authoritarian statists).

Now we see the same thing with Obamacare.  The left is calling it by the bill’s official title: the Affordable Care Act, because it’s a failure and they don’t want Obama’s name associated with Obamacare.  Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act and vice versa.  But it’s time to hush up the failure by changing the language used.

(H/T Jawa Report)

From the Weekly Standard:

“Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21,” says a reporter for CNN from the White House. “That of course being just last month….”

Of course, she found out her coverage was being taken away by Obamacare and she can’t afford what she’s offered by Obamacare.

-

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has decided to just sit back and enjoy watching Obama fail.  After all, this was warned against for a long, long, long time.  They were warned, they were told it wouldn’t work, they were told why it wouldn’t work, and they rammed it down our throats anyway… and now they get to fail.

If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place.  …

The hubris of our ocean-commanding commander-in-chief surely isn’t news to readers of this website. He’s said that he’s smarter and better than everyone who works for him. His wife informed us that he has “brought us out of the dark and into the light” and that he would fix our broken souls. The man defined sin itself as “being out of alignment with my values.” We may be the ones we’ve been waiting for, but at the same time, everyone has been waiting for him. Or as he put it in 2007, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”

In every tale of hubris, the transgressor is eventually slapped across the face with the semi-frozen flounder of reality.  …

During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of Healthcare.gov. In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”

This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.

Of course we’re all going to suffer for the government takeover of 1/6 of the US economy, but at least we can enjoy watching the left fail at it.  We can enjoy some schadenfreude watching the leftist supporters have their hopes and dreams dashed as they look on in baffled confusion and pain like a dog who’s just discovered how skunks work.

Hold on to your tin foil hat…

Via ZeroHedge, from Alt-Market:

The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe.

Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.

Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as “dangerous extremists.” Reports from sources within Fort Hood and Fort Shelby confirm this trend.

Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn’t directly order it to happen? And let’s not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.

To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was “really good at killing people.”

Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many “mistakes,” attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?

But of course, then there’s the other end of the spectrum:

A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.

Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.

The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.

As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.

It’s really worth it to read the whole thing, either at ZeroHedge, or Alt-Market.

And if you don’t have an AR-15, sell your cloak and buy one.

jesus ar 15

A lot has happened in a week, as Krauthammer saying “the president now is toxic” seems to be getting proved more and more true.  That’s because the Obama government is chosing winners and losers – the winners will be the recipient class of serfs and the big government autocrats, and the losers will be independent people who took care of their own lives.

And it keeps getting more and more notice.

Things like this gullible leftist couple getting hit with Obamacare bills is in no small part how (via HotAir):

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.

“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”

They had a really good plan, they lived well, and now they’re being penalized for it.  Their solution is to drop their income in order to get handouts from the government.  They are willingly becoming serfs.

The problem is that the healthy and those who live healthy are just “genetic lottery winners” who were paying an “artificially low price” because of “discrimination” against the sick.

Obamacare is reverse eugenics.  Live right, eat healthy, exercise, and you must be punished with taxes in order to pay for your unhealthy neighbor because it’s “discrimination” to recognize your success over their failure.  It’s “health justice”.

Some, like the Hammacks, believe in the idea that genetic winners and those who live healthy must be punished – even at their own expense.  Of course, they believe in it being a price levied against other people, and they’re personally going Galt.

From Breitbart:

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) told local supporters at a town hall in his northern Florida district Tuesday night that he and other Republicans are currently drafting a resolution seeking impeachment for Attorney General Eric Holder.

“It’s to get him out of office—impeachment,” Yoho said of the forthcoming resolution, according to the Ocala Star-Banner newspaper, adding, “it will probably be when we get back in (Washington). It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

The local newspaper noted that Yoho and other House Republicans are planning to approach House Speaker John Boehner with the plan shortly.

I’ll believe it when I see it.  That said, like Mulder, I want to believe.

holder hope he goes to prison w crAs usual, though, there’s a fundamental error with so many Republicans:

“Obviously there is a lot frustration with our attorney general. You can name the botched programs,” Cammack (ST: Cat Cammack, Yoho’s chief-of-staff) said. “Fast and Furious has been one of the No. 1 complaints we get in our office and why no one has been held accountable.”

Fast and Furious was not botched.  It did exactly what it set out to do.  The ATF sent guns to the cartels, knowingly.  They had the FBI violate the law so felons could pass NICS background checks, they told their own agents to stand off, and their supervisors were “giddy” when they found weapons at murder scenes in Mexico.  They were all about sending guns to the cartels.  It was used to push for more gun control, it was used to further the 90% lie, it was used to create an anti-gun narrative about an “iron river” of guns going south that just wasn’t so.

It was not botched, it was exposed.

-

And as of last month in Arizona, whistleblower John Dodson has been kicked off his CBP liason job:

The federal agent who blew the whistle on the Fast and Furious scandal is suddenly unwelcome at the very Border Patrol agency he sought to protect.

For months, John Dodson, a special agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has been his agency’s liaison to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in a local office in Arizona.

He also had been widely saluted by border agents and their families for first revealing that weapons that ATF knowingly allowed to cross into Mexico were showing up at murder scenes on both sides of the border.

One of those scenes was the December 2010 fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose family has publicly thanked Mr. Dodson for coming forward.

But Mr. Dodson was abruptly moved aside Tuesday from his CBP liaison role just hours after it was disclosed in The Washington Times that he had sought the help of the American Civil Liberties Union in his fight to publish a book on the Fast and Furious case.

I’d guess there’s more to this.  Also, CBP management and CBP employees are often of two very different minds.

The ACLU is a frequent legal nemesis of law enforcement, intervening in lawsuits over the privacy and rights of people under investigation. The ACLU has raised concerns about the militarization of police units funded by the Homeland Security Department, the parent agent for the Border Patrol.

“Going to the ACLU was seen as a real poke in the eye of law enforcement, along with wanting to do a tell-all book while still on the job. This was viewed by CBP as crossing the thin blue line,” one law enforcement official told The Times.

Again, this is a management decision, not a line agent decision.  I suspect there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye.

That said, the American Communist Lawyers Union is an organization that loathes the Second Amendment, supports the ATF’s mission of citizen disarmament, loves illegal aliens, and generally hates the Border Patrol more than the cartels do.

Liar in chief:

Media stooge response of Mika Brzezinski hitting herself in the face (at about 1:35):

Not because it’s a lie, not because it’s hurting citizens, but because it’s “optics”.  It looks bad for the president.  They don’t want things to look bad for Obama because they love him and they support leftist ideology.  They’re upset because they believed the lies, they still believe the lies, and now they’re having to somehow spin the lies again to make up for the reality of them all being lies.

The piece Scarborough references with regards to a cancer patient is this Wall Street Journal article.

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.

Chris Matthews lies when he decides to spin it by saying that a cancer patient would want Obamacare.  You can read the whole article and see that the author, Edie Sundby, is losing her outstanding coverage solely because of Obamacare.  Her health care plan paid out over $1.2 million to keep her alive without questioning her needs.  She had a plan that fit her needs.  Now, Obamacare is going to kill her.

There are a lot of people getting hit in the face by reality.  Even liberals.  And more liberals.

It takes a lot of spin and lies to convince someone that their health care is being revoked for their own good… so they will die… for their own good.