Is the IRS lying about Lois Lerner’s lost emails? The prevailing sentiment in America today could be answered with a series of rhetorical questions: Is the ocean wet? Do birds fly? Does the sun shine?

On Monday night, June 23^rd, I posted this question on my Facebook page: “Do you believe the IRS destroyed emails that directly incriminated the White House?”

One hour later, the post had been viewed by almost 7,300 people and there were 163 comments, virtually of all which answered in the affirmative.

Some of the comments included remarks like: “Absolutely how could we logically think otherwise”; and, “Does a duck quack?”; and “Duh”; and, “Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together does!”; and “Only a fool would think otherwise”; and, “Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear…..well, you know the rest! Yes!”; and, “They were just trying to save hard drive space to save the taxpayers money.”; and, “I could almost believe 1 persons computer crashed but now 6 more people all a part of the targeting probe…if it looks like a duck…..”

I’m aware, of course, that the IRS is not America’s favorite organization and that it’s easy for us to criticize them. After all, who likes paying taxes – especially if we think there’s something unfair about them – and who likes filling out tax forms (unless you’re an account paid to do so)? And is there anything more dreaded than an IRS audit?

That being said, this is not just an example of Americans ganging up on the IRS, which, on a certain level, does provide a necessary government service.

To the contrary, we already have undeniable evidence of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and there is the very suspicious, exponential increase of White House meetings with senior IRS officials during the same time frame that conservative groups were being targeted.

And now there is this ridiculously convenient, complete destruction and disappearance of the potentially incriminating emails, not just on Lerner’s hard drive, but on several other computers of interest as well.

To say that this is purely a matter of coincidence is to strain credulity to the point of absurdity, and to suggest that these files were not backed up externally is also quite a stretch. As one commenter noted on my Facebook page, “1.8 billion dollar budget for their IT. Oh yes. They will say that they do not have enough resources, even with that bloated IT budget.” And this, “Based on my experience as an IT professional, it seems the logical conclusion [that they are lying].” Others also asked about the NSA. Surely they have the missing data.

All of which leads to one obvious question: What is the IRS hiding? What could be so bad about those emails, so bad that it was better to “lose” them – as damning as that looks – then to produce them?

As House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa said to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at an unusual night-time hearing on Monday, “We have a problem with you, and you have a problem maintaining your credibility.”

To Issa’s words, we might add, “To say the least!”

As for Koskinen’s claims that hard drive crashes are all too common, given the outdated equipment the IRS is force to use because of budget cuts, I imagine that many Americans are smiling to themselves over this remark as well, wondering, “How come the IRS never seems to lose my information when I owe them money?”

Of course, anything is possible, and through a series of bizarre mishaps, all the emails in question might really have disappeared without being backed up anywhere else.

But since the odds of that happening are so utterly astronomical, most Americans will likely conclude that the IRS is covering up something really serious, and many will believe the worst – right up to the doors of the Oval Office – unless they hear otherwise.

Everyone else is excerpting it so I shouldn’t miss out. The title above belongs to an article in the Wall Street Journal written by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney. Here is their subtitle: “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

It’s protocol, and an act of class, for a president to keep quiet about the actions of his immediate successor. George W. Bush has been admirably silent, even as his eight years in office is trashed regularly by Obama. Bush’s VP, though, hasn’t felt the need to hold his tongue.

For many of us who have been fans of the senior Cheney since the 1980s — his honestly about the pathetic nature of the Obama Administration has been a source or consolation in an era when political guts seem in short supply.

While I recommend (for the sheer fun of it) that you take a few minutes to read the entire article (it’s not behind the WSJ paywall), here are a few excerpts for your reading pleasure. Here is how Dick and Liz open their piece:

As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama’s past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda. “If a J.V. team puts on Lakers’ uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant” (January 2014). “[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated” (August 2013). “So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding” (September 2011).

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is “ending” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not “decimated.” They are emboldened and on the march.

…

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, “Can you please explain what your president is doing?” “Why is he walking away?” “Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?” “Why is he abandoning your friends?” “Why is he doing deals with your enemies?”

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

Here is how they close it:

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.” President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

Read more: Wall Street Journal

It was an honest mistake. We’ve all been there. You call the IT department and get nothing but the run-around, right? All you want to do is get back into your Outlook, but no dice. This is the situation in which poor Lois Lerner found herself in 2011. Her computer crashed and she lost gobs of emails. Gone forever—apparently Lois didn’t have Carbonite. And wouldn’t you know it, none of the 67,000 unhelpful emails which the IRS has turned over to congressional investigators were lost! Only the ones which involve Lerner’s efforts to use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate conservative groups were lost.

The additional wrinkle, which is just being discovered now by the Heritage Foundation and others, is that Lerner is only 1 of 6 IRS colleagues to suffer the exact same technological break-down. The IRS has known about this difficulty since February, but was somehow too busy to mention it until now.

Among those who suffered a technological failure was Nikole Flax; she served as former chief-of-staff to IRS Commissioner Steven Miller. Commissioner Miller was one of the IRS employees fired during the uncovering of the intimidation scandal. A cleverly-filed FOIA request has shown that Flax gave Lerner the approval to get together with DOJ officials, in order to explore criminal charges against conservative groups. The Congressional committee investigating the IRS scandal discovered last week that Lerner sent over 1 million pages of data to the FBI, including confidential taxpayer information. Not only was Lerner discriminating against conservative groups on their applications for tax-exemption, she planned to solicit the help of the Feds to pursue criminal charges against them.

Of course this is just an honest IT mistake, right? I mean, it could have happened to anyone. It’s got to be Murphy’s Law at work since the computers of 6 individuals (all affiliated with the current investigation) were affected. Coupled with the fact that the emails which were irretrievably lost just happened to be those which Congress was hoping to read, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. According to the new Minister of Disinformation, Josh Earnest, the idea that these emails were lost on purpose is “far fetched”. (Incidentally, when did WH Spokesmen begin adopting stage names?? Josh’s is particularly ironic.)

After 6 years of the Obama-ganda machine, a pattern has emerged. It always begins with some sort of scandal which gets uncovered; not by an actual media investigation, but by independent efforts on the part of a citizen journalist or a non-profit organization armed with a crafty FOIA request. The Administration then tries to ignore it for a couple of news cycles. If the story doesn’t go away, they craft an implausible story to explain what happened. The more implausible, the better. At this point, the lapdog media immediately begins peddling this explanation as completely credible; usually taking the opportunity to fill in any perceived gaps in the story which the Administration missed in its initial roll-out. If questions still persist, the questioner is either labeled a lunatic or a racist.

This is orchestrated in textbook Alinski fashion: a crazy explanation becomes the honest answer, an honest inquiry becomes a crazy explanation. George Orwell would have been drooling over such an ironic juxtaposition. The switcheroo works because it trades on the power of Ridicule, one of Alinski’s favorite tools. He discovered that people don’t like to be ridiculed. This is even more true today, when everyone is raised to abhor conflict and even the losing team gets a trophy. The weaker we become, as a society, the more power Alinskian tactics will hold.

Since most people today have a phobia of being ridiculed, they will accept an alternative to ridicule more readily than mockery, even if that alternative is a bald-faced lie. A surprising number of people would rather treat something outlandish as if it were plausible than to be branded a lunatic, even though they stand on a logical foundation. The only way to counteract this technique is to ignore the ridicule. A liar can’t redefine reality if his target refuses to give the redefinition any legitimacy. We have seen them use this game plan during the birth certificate controversy, the Tea Party-Congressional Black Caucus spat on the steps of the Capitol, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Trayvon Martin case, the Bergdahl Trade, and again with the IRS Scandal.

The fact that we don’t have citizens rioting in the streets is because they have been kept in check by the power of social ridicule…well, that and the militarized thugs in DHS who keep buying ammo by the truckload.

This article was first published at the ClashDaily.com website.

Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor (R-VA) was attributed to his Tea Party backing, when national groups like the Tea Party Patriots gave him no financial assistance at all. What the media ignored was his campaigning in local churches and emphasis on family values.

In addition to opposing illegal immigration, Brat’s platform declared that “the most important factor in our nation’s success is the strength of the family unit.” It said that Brat would “protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”

“A man of deep faith,” his bio says, “Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.” It says he went to Princeton where he obtained a Masters in Divinity and on to American University where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics.

During the campaign he also repeatedly emphasized a national security policy of “peace through strength.”

As they played down his pro-moral values message, in a victory that is continuing to send shock waves through the political establishment, our media have failed to report on how President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America has been working out in a process that can only be described as the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.

It is a topic that some Republicans, eager to sound like Democrats on social issues, want to avoid. But Brat’s victory—and the fact that his pro-traditional values message struck a chord—may cause them to start paying attention.

Many have been amazed at the lengths to which the Obama administration went to get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl out of enemy hands, by exchanging him for five top terrorists. But consider the extraordinary June 5th Department of Defense “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month Ceremony,” which featured “the highest ranking transgendered civilian appointment in the Department,” a “woman” named Amanda Simpson who used to be a man named Mitchell Simpson.

Simpson introduced the event and proudly identified herself/himself as transgender, generating a round of applause.

We reported on Simpson in 2010, when he/she became the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy. Simpson has since moved from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department.

Simpson reflects the aggressive infiltration of the federal government, even the Pentagon, by the George Soros-funded transgender movement. The Executive Director of something called the “Army Energy Initiatives Task Force,” Simpson served as a board member of the National Center for Transgender Equality from 2007 to 2009. George Soros has been a backer of the group, giving them $150,000 through his Open Society Foundations in 2011 alone.

You may recall that former Army soldier Bradley Manning had listed the National Center for Transgender Equality among his “likes and interests.” Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property, and other offenses, has now said, “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female.” He wants the taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation and the Pentagon seems willing to oblige him/her.

At the Pentagon event, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work delivered the keynote address, saying, “We honor the service and sacrifices of our gay and lesbian service members…” Clearly, Manning is not somebody the Pentagon is necessarily “proud” of. Still, the extraordinary “gay pride” ceremony at the Pentagon was something to see. It reflected what Robert R. Reilly describes in his new book, Making Gay Okay, as the transformation of the homosexual rights movement from a request for tolerance to a cultural conquest.

It is quite shocking to think that the Pentagon has been conquered in this insidious process. Yet, that’s what the facts seem to show.

Reilly taught at the National Defense University, and served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy from 2002 to 2006. His publisher, Ignatius Press, has produced a short YouTube videoabout his provocative new book.

However, Breitbart News reports that the Reilly book is receiving the silent treatment from much of the conservative media. “Reilly’s new book cannot get a hearing; there is a media blackout, a stonewall even among the conservative press…” reports Austin Ruse.

If the conservative media won’t cover the homosexualization of the military, who will? It is a question that Reilly must be asking.

It is a book that Pentagon officials should read. In a chapter titled “Sodomy and the Military,” Reilly notes that “From America’s founding until 2011, the armed forces of the United States have prohibited sodomy and sought to exclude homosexuals from military service. In 1778, at Valley Forge, General George Washington approved the sentence of dismissal for an officer ‘attempting to commit sodomy,’ with ‘abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes,’ according to Washington’s papers at the Library of Congress.”

In April of this year, however, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel presided over a signing ceremony for the “Human Goals Charter,” a document rewritten to affirm the special rights of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. Hagel and top military officials signed it. “I’m proud that the language of the charter has been updated to reflect the contributions of gay and lesbian military personnel who now serve openly and proudly across America’s armed forces,” Hagel said.

Rewriting the history of the American republic, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work told the “gay pride” ceremony that “Upholding the individual liberties, dignity and worth of every American is the bedrock principle upon which our nation was founded.”

General George Washington’s view and the treatment of homosexuality during his lifetime have simply been eliminated from the military history of the United States.

At the Pentagon’s “pride” ceremony, Work also made mention of Brigadier General Tammy Smith, “the first openly gay General Officer in the United States military.” Smith is the Deputy Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army Reserve. Her official bio refers to Smith and “her spouse Tracey Hepner,” who works for the Department of Homeland Security. She was chosen to sit with first lady Michelle Obama during the 2013 State of the Union address.

There is no doubt these changes at the Pentagon are being directed from the top.

“The price of open homosexual service is to drive virtue, including the military virtues, further underground as deviancy is defined upward,” Reilly says in his book. “This is not an accidental effect or simply collateral damage; it was…the larger purpose of revoking the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The military was the last public bastion within the government for these virtues; so it became the target. It had to be made to kneel before moral abnormity. Men of honor had to be required to acquiesce publicly. Their fall represents the definitive triumph of the moral dystopia that has been eating its way through America’s institutions.”

Referring to those service members who resign or are being dismissed because of their belief in traditional values, as well as those ruling out a military career because of the changes underway, he says, “The failure of many of those in public life, including senior military officers, to rally to the defense of these service members and their institution has a name: trahison des clercs. It is not an honorable one, but they have earned it.”

The French phrase, “trahison des clercs,” refers to the treason of the intellectuals.

It would be a shame if conservative voices in the media take part in the treachery, especially when there is evidence to believe that Dave Brat’s dramatic come-from-behind victory over Eric Cantor was based at least in part on staying true to the traditional values that made this country great, and made our military the best in the world.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

Obama has achieved a Reaganaut’s long-ago dream of turning the ‘best and brightest’ away from Uncle Sam

Written by Joseph A. Morris

One day, about 30 years ago, when I was the general counsel of the United States Office of Personnel Management (the agency responsible for management of the Federal civil service) under President Ronald Reagan, one of my colleagues in the agency’s senior staff circulated among OPM’s leaders a paper that advocated a radical heresy.

The agency should cease all activities to recruit America’s “best and brightest” young people into federal government service; we should stop sending recruiters to the best colleges and universities and stop trying to induce the best students to embark on careers in the foreign service, the defense agencies, the intelligence services and in the domestic departments, he urged.

His argument was this was inimical to the best interests of the American people: The “best and brightest” belonged in private industries and professions, where they could actually accomplish something of benefit for the country.

Government, even at the lofty levels of the federal service, was a wasteland of ill-conceived programs that accomplished little other than oppress people, overregulate and overtax them and waste their resources.

Staffing government with ever-smarter people would only make government more competent at oppression, overregulation, overtaxing and waste.

Inasmuch as government was hurtful when it wasn’t silly, the more inefficient government is, the better off the people are.

If smart and able young people insisted on wanting careers in public service, he thought we ought to steer them away from the federal government and send them instead in the direction of local governments and religious institutions.

After all, firefighters, police officers, traffic engineers, schoolteachers and nuns are far more likely actually to help people than are federal bureaucrats.

So went my friend’s argument.

This was the view of a government executive who, like our bosses, Reagan and OPM Director Donald J. Devine, thought that government in America was indeed overstretched and was being told by Congress and, in a sense, by the American people, to do things — to perform functions — that government cannot do well if at all.

Reagan heartily believed that public service ought to be a respectful and honorable calling, but that it was impossible to respect public servants if the things that government was doing, especially not by accident but by design, were dishonorable and undeserving of respect.

The best way to get people to respect government was to shrink it, Devine argued. If the functions of government were perceived to be legitimate, necessary and minimal, then the American people would respect government; and the best and brightest would flock to be members of the civil service.

Thirty years later, the president of the United States is a man who worships government as much as Reagan distrusted it.

In the last five years, President Obama and his allies in Congress have expanded the scope and reach of government dramatically.

Increasingly, the federal government is responsible not just for national defense and fighting organized crime, but for the delivery of formerly private and local services, such as medical care and hospitalization, on which people’s lives depend.

Yet, as the Obamacare and Veterans Affairs scandals demonstrate that, even under a president totally committed to making government as big and as competent as it can be, government stretched beyond its legitimate boundaries doesn’t work.

And in consequence, Obama has accomplished something of which my government-loathing colleague at OPM only dreamed: Driving the best and brightest of America’s young people away from public service.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the federal workforce is aging significantly and that it is having a harder and harder time in recruiting bright young people to join the service.

 Joseph A. Morris is an attorney practicing in Chicago.  This article was first published at the WashingtonExaminer.com website.

By Michael Farris of HSLDA

We have bad news. The dangerous UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) that you narrowly defeated through calls and emails in 2012 has returned. It has come back stronger than ever, and its supporters are preparing to ram it through the U.S. Senate.

This United Nations treaty says “in all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Not “parental rights,” as our U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. But “best interests of the child,” a legal term only used during divorce and abuse and neglect cases. Government officials could use this section to override parental decisions for their child with a disability. Other provisions of this treaty threaten U.S. sovereignty, promote abortion rights, and require a national registry of all children with disabilities (the term “disability” isn’t even defined).

Freedom at Risk

The UNCPRD isn’t about protecting people with disabilities—our nation’s own laws and strong leadership overseas already do this. It’s about whether we will surrender our freedom to an unelected, unaccountable United Nations.

You defeated this treaty in December 2012. But the supporters were looking for a way to win the second time and ratify the UNCRPD. And they believe they have found it with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, which was issued last week.

Bond v. United States dealt with a jilted wife who used household chemicals in a bungled attempt to poison her rival. But it quickly turned into a major constitutional case dealing with the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty, congressional action, and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court made the right decision and found that it was ridiculous for the federal government to prosecute this hapless chemical user. But the Court’s decision was very narrow, and never addressed the treaty power found in the U.S. Constitution.

Only three justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—brought this issue up. And they—like HSLDA—are very worried about how treaties can threaten our system of limited federal government and our constitutional freedoms. We encourage you to read the decision here. You can read the concurring opinions of justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito starting after page 21.

Aggressive Lobbying

Supporters of the UNCRPD such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (NJ) seemed to not even have read this decision in their haste to urge ratification of this United Nations treaty. In the days since the decision, countless organizations have issued press releases calling for swift ratification of the UNCRPD. Supporters of the treaty are aggressively lobbying on Capitol Hill at this very moment. This treaty is roaring back, possibly as early as the week after Independence Day.

HSLDA’s federal relations staff and our allies are fighting back on Capitol Hill as hard as we can. But ultimately, only you can stop this treaty. We ask that you immediately take a moment to email your two U.S. senators and urge them to protect our nation’s sovereignty against the United Nations, to protect parental rights, and to vigorously oppose the UNCRPD. If you have the time to send a letter, that would be even better.

We know emails and letters take time. But this battle is crucial. Let’s hold off on phone calls for now so we can save that powerful action for when a vote is scheduled. But please make your voice heard by sending a letter or email in your own words. Then please forward this email to three of your friends and ask them to do the same.

Thank you for standing with us to preserve our freedom in the face of the United Nations and transnationalists in the U.S. Senate. This is going to be a tough fight. By the grace of God and the tireless work of parents and concerned citizens like you, this treaty was defeated in 2012. I believe we can defeat it again.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk today to urge the to OPPOSE this international threat to U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. 

We made the wrong exchange. In exchange for Bergdahl the Deserter, we sent five of the most dangerous criminals behind bars to Qatar, where they will inevitably be released to return to their Taliban rat-holes. To say this was an idiotic decision is to unfairly disparage idiots everywhere…

This “swap” is mind-boggling because of who we gave up, not because we made an offer to get Bergdahl the Deserter. I want the Deserter in custody, that way he can answer for his cowardice and be sentenced for his crimes. This will not assuage the grief felt by those families who lost a soldier during efforts to retrieve the Deserter, but it might offer some slight comfort to know that the mission was accomplished and justice was served. So the fact that we obtained the Deserter is excellent; the price we paid is abysmal, both in lives lost and prisoners sprung.

If I were President, I would have taken a completely different approach. I would’ve sent them Gwyneth Paltrow. Not alone, of course. I would have included Charlize Theron, Tom Cruise, and Kanye. I would have dressed them up in orange jumpsuits and put black bags over their heads until they got to Qatar. Once the Taliban got over their initial surprise, those goat herders would be more star-struck than pissed. I’m sure that every one of their training camps has a prized copy of Risky Business, Mighty Joe Young, or Emma on VHS for Mujahedeen Movie Night. (“Don’t forget Ali, you can’t come to movie night unless you get measured for your burkha disguise first!”)

It goes without saying that each of these brave Americans would be willing to make this trade, given that they are so well-acquainted with the cost of war. Their orders would be to overpower their captors with their celebrity, while gleaning crucial intel about the inner workings of the Taliban. In many ways, they’ve been training for this mission their whole lives. Each day, as they manage their Twitter feed and wade through mobs of camera-wielding paparazzi, they come face to face with the stark equivalent of war and desolation. Those times spent in air-conditioned trailers—stocked with anything and everything they could ever want—waiting for a director to signal the start of filming for the day, have honed their ability to handle deprivation on the front lines. All of those hours spent sipping champagne backstage before a concert have taught them the meaning of sacrifice and honor.

Does anyone remember when a fair number of our entertainers actually were hard-working, honorable Americans who understood the value of sacrifice without taking their fanciful lives so seriously? Folks like Mickey Rooney, who served in the military during WW2 and used his talent to encourage and entertain our boys in battle. J.D. Salinger, who landed on the beaches of Normandy with 6 chapters of then-unpublished Catcher in the Rye in his pocket and helped liberate France from the Nazis. Jimmy Stewart and the “Splendid Splinter” Ted Williams, who left careers, family, and fame to put their lives on the line for this country. And who can forget The King? “The army can do anything it wants with me…Millions of other guys have been drafted, and I don’t want to be different from anyone else,” said Elvis upon enlistment in the Army in 1958.

We still have the occasional Pat Tillman and Gary Sinise, but they are few and far between. For the most part, our entertainers and athletes can’t be bothered with personal sacrifice and their sense of honor has been so atrophied that they can—with a straight face—compare their superficial, shallow lives to the lives of those who stand between us and the horrors of war. So I say, swoop up Cruise, Paltrow, and the rest in the middle of the night, ziptie-and-hood them, let them wakey-wakey in the tent of the Mullahs, and see how their concept of “war” stacks up. In the meantime, we can farm out their palatial estates (see here, here, and here) to returning troops and their families to enjoy some well-deserved R&R.

The true celebrities of this Republic have never been the prating jackasses who rake in millions for entertaining; but the men in uniform who go looking for the Bad Guy, in order to protect and preserve our freedom. God bless our troops.

This article was originally posted at the ClashDaily.com website.

The filmmaker who exposed Barack Obama’s Marxist background, and debt to a pro-Soviet Communist Party operative, is trying once again to wake up America. This time, Joel Gilbert is using Michael Moore-style cinematic tactics to expose President Obama, the progressives, and their destructive Marxist schemes.

His new film, “There’s No Place Like Utopia,” is due in theaters this summer. The world premiere will be in Denver.

The theme is that socialism’s false promise is comparable to the fraudulent wizard behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz.”

Obama is portrayed as the new wizard, in the tradition of Lenin, Mao and Castro. A poster for the film shows Obama waving the American flag while holding a hammer and sickle behind his back.

Like Michael Moore, who revolutionized filmmaking by conducting personal investigations and confrontations, Gilbert highlights Obama’s “transformation” of America into a socialist state through personal visits to such cities as Chicago, Detroit and Denver, and interviews with the perpetrators and victims of Obama’s schemes.

Gilbert highlights modern-day progressive strategies, including welfare giveaways, illegal immigration, Muslim infiltration and even marijuana legalization.

This film has a much different tone and quality than his 2012 documentary, “Dreams from My Real Father,” which examined the hidden history of America’s first black president in a serious and matter-of-fact manner.  In that film, Gilbert cited evidence that Obama’s mentor, Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, was his biological father, and that the media conspired with Obama to conceal the truth.

For his efforts, Gilbert’s personal financial affairs were investigated by a George Soros-linked journalist.

Hillary Clinton once talked about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but Gilbert documents in an entertaining way in the new film how a socialist state is being built on the wreckage of the deliberate destruction of capitalism in the U.S. It’s a process that’s been underway for decades, with Obama presiding over the crowning achievement—a socialist state.

Indeed, a new book, Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA, captures the mood of the political left these days. They believe their time has come.

One chapter of the book, believe it or not, is called “Teach Freedom,” and it is written by former communist terrorist Bill Ayers. A chapter on the news media promises “first class news” under socialism.

If Marxism has been discredited, as many conservatives would like to believe, then how do we explain the recent column, “Christianity Is Communism! Jesus Was a Communist!,” by Mike Rivage-Seul, a former “professor of peace and social justice” at Berea College in Kentucky.

“My wife, Peggy, and I are going to Cuba again,” he writes. “A week from tomorrow, we’ll be leading a group of Berea College students on a three-week study tour of the island. We’ll be especially interested in having students come to grips with its history, political economy, sustainable agricultural practices, and its form of democracy, its education and health care systems.”

Perhaps Gilbert’s film can make a dent in this decadent mentality.

On the other hand, former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazensky poses this question in the film: “Don’t these people know about our awful Soviet experience?”

Apparently not. As Russian leader and former Soviet KGB spy Vladimir Putin consolidates and expands his power, while openly acknowledging his debt to Soviet Russia, one has to wonder if the lessons of the past will be understood or even acknowledged.

This foreign policy challenge is something, unfortunately, that is not addressed in the Gilbert film.

It is worth noting, however, that the Ukrainian government is asking for anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry, in the face of the Russian invasion, and Obama is sending packaged meals-ready-to-eat, sleeping mats, water purification units, shelters, generators, fuel pumps and some medical supplies.

Ignoring the damage caused by their own policies, here and abroad, the progressives are holding a “New Populism” conference of their own on May 22^ndin Washington, D.C.

Featured speakers include Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sessions are promised throughout the day that “will be sharpening the progressive principles that will unite and galvanize America’s new populist majority.” They think they have a majority of people on their side.

These progressives have no desire to confront Vladimir Putin over his aggression. Their enemies are the Republican Party, the Koch brothers, the Supreme Court and big corporations.

The irony, of course, is that billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros is a funder of the Campaign for America’s Future, the group sponsoring the conference. Soros also contributed to Senator Warren’s campaign for the Senate and co-hosted a fundraiser for her.

The title of Sen. Sanders’ prepared speech is “Fight Back Against the Oligarchs,” but you can assume he will not target Soros.

Perhaps Soros, not Obama, is the man behind the curtain.

Obama’s twisted priorities

Although Obama campaigned on fixing the VA, he has made more efforts to pacify the desires of homosexuals than he has in providing for the needs of veterans.

A 2007 campaign press release illuminates both Obama’s dishonesty and his remarkable incompetence:

After seven years of an [Bush] Administration that has stretched our military to the breaking point, ignored deplorable conditions at some VA hospitals, and neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes, America’s veterans deserve a President who will fight for them not just when it’s easy or convenient, but every hour of every day for the next four years.

If today’s VA hospitals are evidence of what Obama is able to accomplish when he fights for something every hour of every day for four years, Lord, help us.

Here’s an excerpt from a 2007 campaign speech in which Obama not only illuminates his incompetence but unwittingly admits to the true future of the health care he has imposed on all of America:

[W]e know that the sacred trust cannot expire when the uniform comes off. When we fail to keep faith with our veterans, the bond between our nation and our nation’s heroes becomes frayed. When a veteran is denied care, we are all dishonored. It’s not enough to lay a wreath on Memorial Day, or to pay tribute to our veterans in speeches. A proud and grateful nation owes more than ceremonial gestures and kind words.

Caring for those who serve—and for their families—is a fundamental responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief….and it is something I will fight for as President of the United States.

It’s time for comprehensive reform. When I am president, building a 21st century VA to serve our veterans will be an equal priority to building a 21st century military to fight our wars. My Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs will be just as important as my Secretary of Defense….

The VA will also be at the cutting edge of my plan for universal health care, with better preventive care, more research and specialty treatment, and more Vet Centers….

I will revamp an overburdened benefits system. The VFW has done a remarkable job helping more than 120,000 veterans a year navigate the broken VBA bureaucracy, but you shouldn’t have to do it alone. I will hire additional workers, and create an electronic system that is fully linked up to military records and the VA’s health network.

One of the most admired principles of the U.S. military is that no one gets left behind. Yet too often America does not keep faith with this principle

Contrast Obama’s miserable failure to address the needs of veterans with his vigorous efforts to satiate the desires of homosexuals. Here are just a few of his many efforts to revamp the moral structure of America and the world:

• On Saturday, May 31, 2013, in the midst of the VA hospital scandal, the Obama Administration announced that the National Park Service would begin installing “markers at significant locations that note the advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.”
• On Friday, May 30, 2013, in the midst of the VA hospital scandal, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided that henceforth the overburdened Medicare system would pay for the absurdly named “sex reassignment surgery.”
• He found time to be interviewed by lesbian journalist Robin Roberts about his evolutionary support for same-sex “marriage.”
• He found time to congratulate NBA player Jason Collins for announcing to America that he is homosexual.
• He found time to congratulate football player Michael Sam on being the first openly homosexual NFL draft pick.
• Obama repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the policy that prohibited open homosexuals from serving in the military.
• He appointed the controversial homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings, to be his “safe school” czar.
• He appointed openly homosexual John Berry to be the “Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM)” where he was “responsible for recruiting, hiring, and setting benefits policies for 1.9 million federal civilian employees.” Berry was then appointed to serve as  ambassador to Australia.
• In a controversial recess appointment, he nominated lesbian Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where she sits as chair. Feldblum has long advocated the view that when in conflict, the sexual rights of homosexuals should trump the First Amendment religious rights of conservative people of faith.
• In 2009, for the first time, an administration set aside a special block of tickets to the White House Easter Egg Roll for families headed by homosexuals and the gender-confused.
• He hosted a purported “bullying prevention” conference at the White House to which he invited notorious, anti-Christian homosexual sex columnist Dan Savage.
• In a 2011 formal address before the full General Assembly of the United Nations, Obama promoted the political goals of homosexuals.
• Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
• In a pre-Super Bowl interview, Obama opined that the Boy Scouts of America should allow openly homosexual boys to become members of the Scouts (which, lest we forget, take an oath to honor God).
• In addition to John Berry, Obama appointed four other openly homosexual ambassadors.
• He appointed an openly homosexual assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice who was part of the team arguing that DOMA was unconstitutional.
• The White House has hosted six “LGBT Conferences.” 
• During the 2013 sequestration cuts, Obama announced that $11 million in development aid would go to activists promoting the normalization of homosexuality and gender-confusion abroad.
• While neither of the Obamas nor Vice President Biden attended the opening ceremonies of the Sochi Olympics, Obama sent a delegation that included for the first time two openly homosexual members.
• He supports the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” which, if passed, will prohibit even Christian employers from refusing to hire gender-confused cross-dressers.
• Obama supports the ironically named “Respect for Marriage Act,” which, if passed, would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in its entirety. That would mean that states that prohibit same-sex “marriage” would have to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states.
• Obama issued a “proclamation” for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2013” in which he boasted about his efforts to persuade the world to approve of homosexual activity and gender-confusion.

It would appear from this exhausting but non-exhaustive list that Obama has spent far more hours over the last four years fighting for the normalization of sexual deviance than he has fighting for the needs of our veterans who were willing to risk everything for our liberty.

Obama’s Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki has resigned. Too bad Obama won’t.

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

“For the foreseeable future,” says President Barack Obama, “the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.” Yet his remarks at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony included no acknowledgement that NSA traitor Edward Snowden has made this kind of terrorism more likely. And there were no demands for Moscow to turn him over to U.S. authorities to face espionage charges.

Our intelligence experts are worried that more terrorism is being planned. S. Eugene Poteat, a retired senior CIA Scientific Intelligence Officer and the current President of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, tells the most recent edition of Homeland Security Today that “Terrorists will now find it easy to counter our intelligence capability, which was based on NSA’s metadata, so we can expect more terrorism in the U.S. in the future.”

Asked by editor-at-large Timothy W. Coleman if Snowden received help from a foreign intelligence service, he commented, “[I] have no idea if he [Snowden] was already in Russia’s pocket, but I feel certain he is by now, and they will already have emptied his computers into theirs. The Chinese, I think, cleaned his clock also.” This was a reference to Snowden stopping in Hong Kong before going to Russia.

But some journalists, on the left and right, seem to think they know more than the experts, and that they are better equipped to judge.

Kirsten Powers is supposed to be one of the more level-headed liberals on the Fox News Channel. But her USA Today column on Wednesday praising Edward Snowden mouthpiece Glenn Greenwald is amateurish in its analysis of what happened in this case, and cavalier in dismissing the real possibility that American lives will be lost as a result of this anti-American intelligence operation.

“That Greenwald is not a member of the Washington insider club seems to be the real problem here,” she writes, in regard to some relatively mild criticism of Greenwald’s role. No, the real problem is that Greenwald’s role in publishing Snowden’s classified documents is a clear-cut violation of the Espionage Act. The former gay pornography executive deserves more, not less, media criticism.

Powers, whose bio says she graduated from the University of Maryland (but doesn’t say in what), doesn’t seem familiar with the law. She noted that NBC’s David Gregory asked Greenwald, “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden…why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” She then commented, “This accusation, dressed up as a question, was nonsensical. That it came from a fellow journalist was bizarre. How could reporting news be ‘aiding and abetting’? What crime could Greenwald possibly have committed?”

As we said at the time, “The question is entirely legitimate. Section 798 of the Espionage Act absolutely prohibits the publication of classified information in the area of communications intelligence. That would include programs of the National Security Agency (NSA).”

The “crimes” are clear to anyone who reviews the law. The fact that Greenwald has not been charged is more evidence that the Obama administration is not enforcing the law. This seems to be a habit of this administration.

Powers says journalists who criticize Greenwald “seem to labor under the delusion that it’s their job to protect the government.” No, the government, in this case, is the people who expect the laws to be enforced. Snowden was a government employee who stole the property of the government. That is why he has been charged with theft of government property, in addition to espionage.

She also turns her attention to Michael Kinsley’s observation that “There shouldn’t be a special class of people called ‘journalists’ with privileges like publishing secret government documents.” Powers comments, “Actually, there should be, and there is. Without that protection, The Times could not have published the Pentagon Papers. Take that protection away, and we have zero oversight of the government from outside forces.”

In this case, Powers is horribly confused. The “protection” was given to the paper to publish the documents without prior restraint. The charges against Daniel Ellsberg, who stole the Pentagon Papers and provided them to the Times, were pursued. However, they were eventually dismissed because of allegations of government misconduct.

Finally, Powers writes, “Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg noted that the friendly fire against Greenwald is unusual. Ellsberg told an interviewer last year that though he himself was an enemy of the government for leaking secrets during the Vietnam War, ‘journalists were not turning on journalists.’”

First, Ellsberg was not a journalist. Second, as noted, the legal issue was prior restraint, not prosecution of the leaker. In addition, the Pentagon Papers were a history of the Vietnam War, unrelated to ongoing intelligence and military operations. That makes the Snowden-Greenwald case far different.

Finally, it is not a case of journalists turning on other journalists to question their behavior and point out when they violate the law.

Powers called journalistic criticism of Greenwald “strange fury.” No, it’s strange to promote the view that Greenwald should be above criticism and that questions about his conduct are somehow out of bounds.

Even more bizarre than Powers was a column by Joseph Farah in WorldNetDaily saying that Snowden, living in Moscow, should be given a ticker tape parade in the U.S. and welcomed back as a whistleblower. This was strange because Farah’s publishing house, WND Books, released the blockbuster, Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism, which examines how the Soviet Union/Russia remains a major threat to the U.S. Its co-author, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence official ever to defect to the West, told AIM that Snowden’s arrival in Russia was “the result of a well-prepared Russian intelligence operation” against the United States and that his analysis of the evidence shows that Snowden “is an agent of the Russian foreign intelligence service.”

Farah claims ignorance about Snowden’s motivations, and doesn’t seem to care. He should have consulted the co-author of one of his books. The former spy chief of Romania clearly understands the KGB/FSB.

“Apparently Snowden is willing to face the consequences of his action—which also makes him a conscientious practitioner of civil disobedience in its highest form, just like Martin Luther King Jr.,” Farah writes, in another mind-boggling statement. He quickly goes on to say, “He is willing to face trial if there is a deal that allows him to serve only a modest prison sentence.” So he is NOT prepared to face the consequences after all.

In effect, he wants a form of immunity from prosecution, no matter how many Americans die as a result of his treason.

Rather than encourage this kind of thing, journalists should be asking why the Obama administration is not doing everything possible to get Snowden back on U.S. soil to face espionage charges. As for Greenwald, the law dictates that he should be facing a grand jury himself, rather than hawking a book and flaunting his anti-Americanism.

Contrary to what Powers says, it seems that Greenwald has been admitted to the Washington insider club.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

If you thought it was strange that conservative columnist Pat Buchanan has become a passionate defender of Vladimir Putin, brace yourself for the fact that “far-right” French politician Marine Le Pen has also praised the former KGB officer. Putin’s posture as a “Christian” has made inroads in Europe, with Le Pen telling the Austrian daily Kurier that Putin defends “common values” and the “Christian heritage.”

Le Pen’s National Front party (FN), once considered a refuge for neo-Nazis, was the top vote-getter in France’s European elections, with 25.41 percent.

In Britain, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) came out on top, with 27.5 percent of the vote. Party leader Nigel Farage has also expressed his admiration for Putin and, to the surprise even of the left-wing Guardian, has been showing up regularly on Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) television. Sounding like an agent of influence for Putin himself during one appearance favorably covered by RT, Farage claimed the European Union (EU) has “blood on its hands” for supporting Ukraine.

These extraordinary developments bring to mind the great book, How Democracies Perish, by French thinker Jean-Francois Revel. He participated in a 1984 U.S. Information Agency video on how the West is constantly fooled by “active measures,” including disinformation and influence operations, from Moscow.

A new report calls it “Russian information warfare,” as Putin confuses and misleads the West and its political leaders about his true intentions in Ukraine and elsewhere. The report, “The anatomy of Russian information warfare: The Crimean operation, a case study,” explains in detail how the disinformation campaign has been waged.

An article in The Kyiv [Ukraine] Post by William Schreiber, entitled “European Parliament election results bring no good news for Ukraine,” demonstrates how Putin’s influence has corrupted many different European political parties, on the right and left.

In fact, describing the results of the European elections, Schreiber reports, “In Greece, the left-wing Syriza led the vote, with over 26 percent. The far-right Golden Dawn placed third, with close to 10 percent, meaning Golden Dawn will enter the parliament for the first time ever. Despite their locations on the political spectrum, both Syriza and Golden Dawn rejected the legitimacy of Kyiv’s interim government and accused the EU of provoking Russia.”

So the right and left have come together on behalf of Moscow. This is true not only in Europe but America, where Communist Parties, leftist movements, and others sympathetic to Moscow have found themselves in bed with figures such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul in defending Russian aggression against Ukraine.

In Austria, Schreiber reports, the Freedom Party won 20 percent of Austrian voters, a significant leap in its representation. He says its head, Heinz-Christian Strache, opposes EU and U.S. sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

Putin is finding allies all across the globe.

Consider South African President Jacob Zuma, a “former” member of the Communist Party (like Vladimir Putin), whose regime is a “strategic partner” with the Russian government.

Domestically, in his own version of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of a country, Zuma is promising “the implementation of radical socio-economic transformation policies and programs over the next five years.” These include (in his words):

• Strengthening and expanding the role of the state in the economy
• Making state-owned enterprises and development finance institutions “engines of development, complementing the State in promoting inclusive economic growth”
• Changing the ownership and control of the economy
• Land restitution and redistribution

Ironically, South Africa is being touted as one of three vibrant democracies in a new “Democracy Works” report from the Legatum Institute and the Center for Development and Enterprise, even though Zuma’s African National Congress (ANC) just won another election on racial grounds, this time with 62.2 percent of votes. The ANC is a Communist Party front and has never lost a national election in black-ruled South Africa.

At a National Press Club press conference, I asked Ann Bernstein of the Center for Development and Enterprise in South Africa why her country should be seen as a worthwhile model of democracy and development. “South Africa has yet to pass that test,” she said, referring to national elections for a political party other than the one that has been in power. “But democracy is about a lot more than elections.” She insists much progress is being made there.

She did claim that “The Communist Party is actually a small part of South Africa. They’ve become important because they latch on to the ANC. And then some of them get into government and become ministers who introduced the most market-friendly policies you can imagine.”

It’s true that capitalism has not been destroyed in South Africa. The ANC Marxists understand the need for capital, just as Putin opened the door to American corporations and got a Russian “re-set” and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status from President Obama and Congress.

But it was apparent that Bernstein hadn’t read “The South African Road to Socialism,” a document on the website of the South African Communist Party, covering the period from 2012 to 2017. The document talks about the “mobilization of private capital into an NDR [National Democratic Revolution] struggle” (page 48) and how “rolling back” and “transforming” the capitalist market (page 51) is essential to progress. That is precisely what Zuma is doing.

If the South African Communist Party is so small and insignificant, then why did Nelson Mandela conceal his membership in the Party? She had no explanation.

Bernstein and Anne Applebaum, director of the Legatum Institute’s Transitions Forum, made a number of appearances in Washington, D.C., including one hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a federally funded organization. The NED has done some good work, but if this report becomes the basis for even more foreign aid to South Africa, the American taxpayers—and democracy—will not be served. South Africa functions like a one-party state, even though some private enterprise and freedom of the press are currently tolerated. The communists dominate the ANC government.

The list of funders for Bernstein’s group and her projects is quite impressive and includes the NED, along with some prominent U.S.-based conservative foundations. Yet, they have consistently failed to explain how a communist-ruled South Africa that is clearly on the road to socialism qualifies as a democracy in the sense that we understand the word.

To make matters worse, the South African government is a member of the BRICS alliance of nations, standing for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Their foreign ministers issued a statement opposing sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

Interestingly, India and Brazil were the other two countries included in the “Democracy Works” report. Brazil is ruled by a former communist terrorist, Dilma Rousseff. The regime tolerates some dissent but has been a solid ally over the years of dictatorships such as Castro’s Cuba.

India has been a functioning democracy, with power going back and forth between competing political parties. But the most recent winner of national elections, the “right-wing” Bharatiya Janata Party, issued a manifesto declaring it “will continue our dialogue, engagement and cooperation, with global forums like BRICS…” So its anti-American foreign policy will continue.

The two biggest members of BRICS, Russia and China, just signed a $400 billion gas deal, cementing what even the media recognize as a “strategic alliance” against the United States.

On every continent, it seems, the enemies of America are on the offensive.

But look at who the enemies are. In Afghanistan, where American troops continue to sacrifice their lives for some semblance of democracy, the Obama administration released the name of the CIA station chief in violation of the law that protects the identities of U.S. intelligence operatives. The White House called it a mistake.

So-called “mistakes” like this, in the face of determined enemies, make the survival of America and the Free World a matter of urgent debate.

“The Governor should call a special session of the legislature and impeach the judge and affirm the people’s will. If the people wish to allow same-sex marriage, they can put that matter on the ballot and vote for it. Or the legislature can put that matter on the ballot and ask the people to change the Constitution to allow it. But they should not stand by and allow one man to think his robe has more power than it does.” (Emphasis mine.)

This was Gov. Mike Huckabee’s reaction to an Arkansas state judge who arrogantly, defiantly and unconstitutionally overturned the marriage amendment passed by Arkansans with an overwhelming 75 percent of the vote in 2004.

Denzel Washington starred in a movie a couple of years ago, Unstoppable, based on a true story about a runaway train with no engineer on board. Our hero caught up to this train and heroically stopped it just in time to avert an unthinkable catastrophe.

The federal judiciary right now is a runaway train that will shatter and pulverize what is left of American culture and values unless some genuine American heroes climb aboard and stand on the emergency brake.

Renegade, rogue federal judges have developed a cannibalistic taste for the flesh of the electorate and are devouring it at an unprecedented rate. With the recent ruling in Philadelphia, the dizzying number of lone tyrants substituting their will for the will of the electorate has now reached 13 and is climbing virtually by the day.

In the name of God, this runaway train must be stopped.

Who can do it?

There’s no point in telling the people to fix it by going to the polls. We’ve already done that. In 31 states, we voted to elevate protection for natural marriage to our state constitutions. These federal judges simply disenfranchised us with one sweeping edict, crumpled up our state and federal constitutions like waste paper and tossed them in the trash.

So judges have no respect for the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. If they did, this problem would be solved. It’s obviously not.

I’ve written before and continue to maintain that the best solution is for a governor to plant his feet squarely on his state constitution and the Constitution of the United States and flatly refuse to acquiesce to these out of control rulings. A governor who will refuse to grant permission in his state for the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses if his people have spoken on the issue. A governor who will defy any judge or cluster of judges, right up to and including the justices who sit on the Supreme Court.

The only other option I see, short of total anarchy or spineless and supine submission, is the power of Congress to impeach, try, convict and remove renegade federal judges from the bench.

Judges, even ones who sit on the Supreme Court, can be impeached. Federal judges are not, contrary to public myth, appointed for life. Don’t let Republicans lie to you about this. Republicans want you to believe they are powerless. They want you to feel sympathy for them and vote for them while they sadly wring their hands in abject resignation.

Don’t let them get away with this. Republicans control the House of Representatives. If they impeach a judge, he will be impeached and be forced to stand trial in the United States Senate. The Republicans in the House can file articles of impeachment by the close of business today against all 13 rogue federal judges, and against the judges on the Supreme Court who overturned DOMA. Don’t let them lie to you. They can do it. They do not lack the means, they lack only the courage.

According to the Constitution – you could look it up – federal judges serve only “during good behavior.” Since they are appointed and not elected, the remedy for judges who engage in bad behavior is impeachment, followed by a trial in the Senate, conviction and removal from office. Typically, violations of the “good behavior” clause have been corruption, such as accepting bribes. But bad behavior also can include shredding the Constitution.

Umpires in baseball can certainly get banned for taking money to throw a game. But they can also get fired for refusing to apply the rules of baseball as written. If an umpire started changing the rules in the middle of a game, or selectively deciding which ones to enforce, he’d be out of baseball altogether by the end of that game.

I submit to you that disregarding the Constitution – which gives no authority to any part of the federal government to dictate marriage policy to the states – and showing utter contempt for the will of the people is in fact bad behavior.

“Bad,” in fact, doesn’t even come close. It is reprehensible, unconscionable, and abominable.

So we have a problem: renegade, out-of-control, tyrannical federal judges. And we have a solution: the power of impeachment, which right now as we speak is under the control of the party that says in its platform that it will defend and promote natural marriage.

Don’t let any Republican lawmakers or candidates wring their hands and moan about judicial tyranny unless they’re willing to vote for articles of impeachment. If they’re not willing to do that, they are just bloviating and hoping you won’t notice that they don’t have the courage to take the one tool out of the toolbox that could begin the process of constitutional correction.

Bottom line: the Republican Party has the authority to protect natural marriage. They lack only the will.

– See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/05/22/huckabee-points-the-way-impeach-tyrannical-judges#sthash.ZEtUthrt.dpuf

James Taylor (no, not the singer, as this James Taylor isn’t afraid of pointing out) is “the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, focusing on energy and environment issues.” In a short post at Heartlands’ website, he demolishes the whole “the oceans are rising because of melting glaciers” scare mongering going on in the dishonest media fueled by the political left.

Taylor’s post was only one of many in just the past few days on the side of “sound science” — and the question always is, which side’s argument reaches more people? For a sampling, click here, here, and here. As for Taylor’s Heartland post — read it and tell me that we can’t win the information war with this kind of content — if we’d only just reach enough people:

The Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap for the month of April 2014 surpassed its greatest April extent in recorded history. The new record extends a long-term expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet that defies alarmist claims that global warming is or should be melting the polar ice caps.

Ironically, the record Antarctic ice extent occurred as global warming alarmists released a paper claiming recent global warming has now made it inevitable that Antarctica will lose its ice cap nearly 1,000 years from now. The establishment media has given the alarmist paper extensive and uncritical press coverage, even though objective scientists have pointed out glaring flaws in the paper. For example, objective scientists question why recent warming has put the Antarctic ice sheet past a tipping point when the ice sheet has survived many warmer periods in the past.

Satellite instruments measuring the precise extent of the Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap report the polar ice cap has been steadily growing for decades. Moreover, the combined extent of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere polar ice caps have been above the long-term average almost uniformly since 2012.

For more information on Environment & Climate News and the Heartland Institute, click here.

George Soros has been blamed by the pro-Russia crowd for sparking the anti-communist revolution in Ukraine. That was never the case, since Soros funded a small and largely ineffective non-governmental organization in Ukraine, the Renaissance Foundation. Now, a major Soros-funded group has come out with its prescription for resolving the crisis—accepting Russia’s demand that the country stay out of NATO.

Soros, the political left’s leading “dark money” donor, has shown his true colors.

NATO is hardly the anti-communist alliance it once was, but it still remains the largest pro-American group of nations on earth. That’s why the Russians hate it so much.

Ahead of the scheduled elections on May 25, the International Crisis Group (ICG) has just released a report saying Ukrainian leaders should “declare that they do not desire NATO membership.” The ICG receives a significant amount of funding from Soros’s Open Society Institute, and Soros sits on its board.

This follows former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s statements on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” show on May 11, during which he argued that Putin should be accommodated in his drive to take over Ukraine. Kissinger said the West should agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO. Kissinger, whose firm does business in Russia, says Ukraine “will be free to participate in European economic relationships, but not join NATO.”

The global elites have clearly decided that Ukraine must be sacrificed in the name of protecting the big businesses investing in Putin’s Russia.

Not surprisingly, the ICG/Kissinger position is essentially the same as the one held by Russia. The Moscow-funded propaganda channel RT features Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying, “The seeds for the current crisis were sown in 2008 in April during the NATO summit in Bucharest, when NATO leaders stated in a declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would be in NATO.”

But the “seeds” never sprouted and Putin invaded Ukraine anyway.

It was in 2008 that Russia invaded Georgia, taking over two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. NATO’s April 2008 Bucharest Summit had declared, “We agreed today that these countries [Georgia and Ukraine] will become members of NATO.”

Today, however, Georgia still remains an “aspirant” for NATO membership. While Ukraine was also a candidate to join NATO, this never took place, either, with the blame falling on both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Republicans like to forget that Bush was fooled by Putin, saying about the Russian leader in 2001, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialog. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Bush thought Putin would be an ally of the U.S. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Based on what Soros, Kissinger and the others are saying, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and takeover of Crimea, and control over the Black Sea and its strategic waterways will be left in place. The pro-Russian website Global Research notes, “the union of Crimea with Russia redefines the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea Basin.”

The liberal betrayal of Ukraine is something to behold and has taken place in only a few months. “Ukraine is something of a miracle,” Soros declared in an April 7 column. “A group of unarmed citizens rose up and overwhelmed a police force with orders to shoot to kill them. We are witnessing the birth of a new nation, a new Ukraine—with a limitless future made possible by people willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.”

The rhetoric sounded good. But now, these citizens are supposed to abandon their anti-communist vision of being free of Soviet/Russian control. Perhaps the Russians will restore the Lenin statues that the Ukrainians have toppled in dozens of cities.

Raising the white flag of surrender, Soros told The New York Review of Books that Western leaders “cannot prevent or reverse the annexation of Crimea. They are bound to protest it, of course, because it violates the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, but they are not in a position to oppose it by military means.”

So Russia’s violation of international law should be excused. This seems like a strange position for the liberals to take, since they traditionally favor the power of global institutions to enforce international treaties.

What’s more, there’s no evidence that giving Crimea to Russia will end the Putin regime’s campaign to destabilize the rest of Ukraine.

“The United States and the West are not in a position to go to war over the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, nor should they,” says the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. The best steps forward, the group argues, are “to diffuse the situation” and “proactively shape trends and expand possibilities.” This gibberish means doing nothing of a military nature.

Obama himself said recently that neither Ukraine nor Georgia “are currently on a path to NATO membership and there has not been any immediate plans for expansion of NATO’s membership.” This is appeasement of Russia, pure and simple.

Meanwhile, American taxpayers are sending financial assistance to Ukraine, in the form of around $1 billion in loan guarantees, which may inevitably flow back to Russia as payments for gas. The International Monetary Fund, partly financed by the U.S., is sending billions more.

The Ukraine aid bill passed the Senate by a voice vote, and the House by a 399-19 vote.

It’s important to support Ukraine, but not if the plan is to eventually give the Russians or their puppets control of the entire country.

The liberal betrayal is acute when it comes to Obama personally. In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored (with then-Senator Hillary Clinton) a resolution urging Ukraine and Georgia admission to NATO. It unanimously passed the Senate. It was also co-sponsored by then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Curiously, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden has now been added to the board of Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, Burisma Holdings, as if this will help the country stave off Russian subversion and infiltration, or perhaps buy some goodwill in Washington. It is desperation on Ukraine’s part and alienates conservatives who wanted the country to be free.

“For more than half a century, NATO has remained a vital asset in our nation’s efforts to support democracy and stability in Europe and to defend our interests and values throughout the world,” Senator Obama said in 2008. “I welcome the desire of Ukraine and Georgia to seek closer ties with NATO, and I hope that NATO responds favorably to their requests, consistent with its criteria for membership. Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the Alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions.”

But now that Russia has seized parts of Ukraine, Obama has taken Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table, despite what the people in that country may decide in their own free elections. Obama’s true colors are showing, too. He never wanted Ukraine to be truly free and had no desire to confront Russia.

The Hunter Biden move suggests the Democrats are trying to exploit the worsening situation, in order to make some money before the Russians and their allies take over the whole country. The next step will be for Ukraine to hire K Street lobbying firms to make the most of the surrender and save some scraps for their own benefit.

In this context, the Russian front groups are moving forward with propaganda campaigns and even street protests, such as at the NATO summit on September 4-5in Wales. “NATO is the military alliance binding Europe to US foreign policy, a foreign policy post-Iraq increasingly unpopular around the world,” says the Stop the War Coalition. “It is also the military alliance currently occupying Afghanistan.”

Interestingly, these “Stop the War” left-wing protesters don’t want to stop Putin’s war on Ukraine.

As Ukraine fights for its life as an independent nation, NATO leaders will be meeting at the luxurious Celtic Manor Resort—a golf, spa and leisure hotel—to decide the next step to take in appeasing Putin.

Joe Iosbaker of the United National Antiwar Committee is also leading the charge against NATO, appearing on the Iranian-funded Press TV to argue that “In truth, the war moves by the U.S. and NATO in Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea, are bringing about a new Cold War.”

Iosbaker is an interesting character. The homes and offices of he and his wife Stephanie Weiner were raided because of suspicions that they were providing support to foreign terrorist organizations. Both of them have been associated with the Marxist-Leninist Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and the Chicago New Party that included Barack Obama.

Which country is Putin’s next target? Writing in the British Spectator, Alex Massie says, “Putin’s behavior demonstrates that, if anything, the problem with NATO expansion is that perhaps it did not go far enough. What price the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania if they were not now members of the western alliance? Even now their liberty is not guaranteed. It is not hard to see how Russian agitators could spark a contrived crisis in the Baltic states; not hard either to see how Putin might attack them again.”

Putin’s grand strategy, writes analyst Pawel Styrna, includes “rebuilding the empire.” As part of that, he says Putin’s goal is to reduce the influence of “Euro-Atlanticist” powers, i.e., the United States, Great Britain, and their allies. A “Eurasian empire,” centered around its Russian core, is the “engine” driving this “international anti-American coalition.”

In the face of the weak response to Russian aggression, can the destruction of NATO, a long-time Soviet goal, be far behind? If so, why should U.S. taxpayers finance Ukraine’s destruction with bailouts of a regime that will inevitably be transformed into a pawn of Putin’s geopolitical designs and future aggression?

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media blog.