From Francis Marion and Last Resistance:

What makes the head of a crime family happier than a witch in a broom factory? Finding out that he will be keeping his job another 4 years and knowing that virtually no one can touch him. His chief enforcer is also happy as he is keeping his job, at least for another four years.

In 1789, Edmund Jennings Randolph became the first US Attorney General under President George Washington. Randolph, an attorney had previously served as Governor of Virginia before accepting the position as the top legal advisor for the newly formed nation where he would represent the US government in cases before the Supreme Court.

Since Randolph’s time, the role of US Attorney General has expanded to head the Department of Justice, created in 1870, where he/she is considered to be the chief lawyer and law enforcement officer of the US government. As such, the US Attorney General is expected to be the archetype law abiding citizen in the nation.

Today’s US Attorney General, Eric Holder has proven to be anything but the archetype model law abiding citizen. In fact, it seems more like the chief enforcer for the nation’s top crime boss, Barack Obama. Together, the two of them have repeatedly broken one law after another along with committing multiple violations of the US Constitution. Since Holder is the top cop and prosecutor in the country, he’s virtually untouchable.

Yes, the US House of Representatives can impeach Holder, but that would leave the actual conviction up to the Democratic controlled Senate, which we all know won’t happen.

Several of Obama’s Cabinet leaders have informed him that they will be resigning soon. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta are among those that are jumping ship. It seems that Obama has tried to keep Holder in place, but there are rumors that he will only stay for another year.

While that is good news in some ways, one can only wonder who the next top crooked cop will be. Within the halls of Capital Hill, names such as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have been floating around as a possible replacement for Holder. From a conservative point of view, that would be like replacing one liberal lawbreaker with another. A few other names have wafted on the winds of rumor which include Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Gov. Deval Patrick of MA.

I honestly believe that Napolitano could be worse than Holder. As for the other three, I don’t think any of them could be much worse than Holder, and perhaps could even be better, but I won’t hold my breath. I’ll just be glad if and when Holder is gone.

Hear, Hear, Mr. Marion!

This from Oliver North:

The storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the brutal murders of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, produced chaos this week in the so-called mainstream media. Instead of asking about how the heck this could happen in the aftermath of the Obama administration’s Arab Spring euphoria, “reporters” started looking for scapegoats.

The potentates of the press first focused their ire on something few of them even had seen — a puerile Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims” — and then they turned their guns on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. As usual, the O-Team’s media cheerleaders got it all wrong.

As Americans in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania participated in solemn ceremonies honoring our nearly 3,000 countrymen killed in the terror attacks 11 years ago, angry crowds were gathering around our embassy in Cairo. The U.S. Embassy responded by issuing an apologetic statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Instead of defusing the situation, the crowd swelled and stormed the embassy, tore down the U.S. flag and replaced it with a radical Islamic banner.

Truncating, as they say…

Gutting our defense budget, Obama’s “apologetic diplomacy,” kowtowing to foreign potentates, abandoning our ally Israel, delaying the installation of ballistic missile defenses and “leading from behind” have not worked. Nor have “harsh sanctions against Iran” deterred the ayatollahs in Tehran from the race to acquire nuclear weapons.

It’s now up to the Romney campaign to explain how he would do better. He has six weeks to do it. That’s no surprise.

C’mon, Romney, let’s please, please hear it!

The entire column by our favorite former U.S. Marine is here.

From The Investigative Project On Terrorism:

Anti-American violence throughout the Muslim world, ostensibly over a cheap Internet film denigrating the Muslim prophet Muhammad, may be misguided, but it’s a result of “the lack of dignity, the lack of respect that they’re being shown.” And it’s up to America to change policies to calm things.

That’s right. We’ll just scrap the First Amendment altogether and get with the program, because this heinous offending of the Religion of Peace has got to stop.

McGoldrick could have told his Iranian network interviewer that such a perception is not only wrong, but dangerous. He could have pointed out that Muslims in America, especially Shia, are freer to practice their faith than in most Sunni Muslim nations.

But he didn’t. Instead, he raised doubt over the most fundamental American freedom.

Americans enjoy “allegedly a freedom of speech, a freedom of expression –political expression and religious expression,” he explained. “And of course, that comes with it some rights, but also, of course, some responsibilities.”

The recent violence, including the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, might have be seen as “the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of Muslims’ patience with American and Western intervention,” McGoldrick said.

That puts the onus on the United States “to very critically think about how much more weight will we put on the Muslim world? How many more attacks? How many more drone strikes? How many more coups … until we realize that we need to take a principled stand, and a just stand, to make sure that we respect human rights, sovereignty and dignity all over the world.”

respect human rights, sovereignty and dignity — meaning kowtow to Islam, never, ever tell the truth about that “religion” unless it is pure positive hype.

Right.

From Ann Coulter’s latest column, Liberals’ secret weapon: Conservatives who don’t read…

Fifty years from now, everyone will agree that Karl Rove committed treason by revealing the identity of CIA “spy” Valerie Plame, tea partiers shouted the N-word at a black congressman and Duke lacrosse players gang-raped a stripper.

Liberals tell whopping lies, and most conservatives can’t be bothered to learn history.

In the last few days, we’ve heard both George Will and Charles Krauthammer, otherwise intelligent people, repeating bogus Democratic talking points about how Joe McCarthy allegedly smeared innocents with false allegations.

These two, and many lesser lights, have invoked the standard liberal calumnies against McCarthy in order to ridicule Sen. Harry Reid for making a Birther-like accusation against Mitt Romney, saying that the “word is out” that Romney didn’t pay taxes for a decade.

This, it is claimed, is comparable to Sen. Joe McCarthy’s “famous speech” in 1950, in which he allegedly said he had a list of 205 communists at the State Department — but then he never produced that list!

No, the idea that McCarthy threw out unsubstantiated charges and switched numbers, from 57 to 205, were the wild-eyed allegations of McCarthy haters, which, on closer examination, turned out to be completely false, just like the accusations against Rove, the tea partiers and the Duke lacrosse players.

It was proved false at the time — not just decades later, when McCarthy was vindicated with a whoop when Soviet archives and cables were revealed to the world.

Well, that’s what liberals do: They rewrite history as quickly as they can, sometimes almost immediately, to suit their propaganda needs, and it’s true: Our fellow conservatives don’t read nearly enough, resulting in their actually believing much of the left’s version of “established fact”.

As Democrats always do when they are caught red-handed harming the country, they obsessed on some small, technical error of a Republican.

Spot on!

Anyway, the entire Ann Coulter column appears here.

First this one from J.P. Attitude:

Do you know who Jamie Gorelick is? You should. Point to any major calamity in the United States during the last thirty three years and this woman has a connection with it – a strange and eerie run of suspicious coincidence. She’s been dubbed the “Mistress of Disaster” by journalists but the name doesn’t do her justice. Jamie Gorelick has played pivotal roles in U.S. disasters since 1979, and some people place primary blame for the worst disasters directly on her.

“Princess of Darkness” would be a better title.

It’s really good, read the entire post here.

Second, and unsurprising to any right thinking American who cherishes his or her Second Amendment rights:

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is on the warpath again. PBS’ Bill Moyers, who served as White House Press Secretary in the Lyndon Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967, called the NRA “the enabler of death.” It seems to me that James Holmes is the Enabler of Death. 65 million other gun owners in the United States didn’t kill anybody last Thursday evening.

My emphasis, there.

I live just a few miles from the most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.”[1]

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So…

The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populace counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

How about that?

The piece is here.

Of course, the liberals’ anti-gun fanaticism has nothing whatever to do with any concern for “protecting” the innocent from the proclivities of armed citizens, it’s all about the politics of communism, wherein the common man is prohibited from owning a weapon for fear that he might use it to defend himself and his family from the legions of an oppressive government such as that ruling the “Utopia” these liberals envision for the rest of us.

Roger L. Simon has a column up on Pajamas Media that definitely hits a nail of importance right on the head.

As someone who was a sixties civil rights worker, wrote movies for Richard Pryor (successfully) and Whoopi Goldberg (unsuccessfully), and has had the pleasure of working with many talented African Americans at PJ Media for nearly seven years now, I think I have earned the right to write what should be painfully obvious to everyone — most of the racism in America today is from blacks (aided and abetted by white liberals) toward whites.

In fact, it’s getting to be outrageously so. The rude treatment of Mitt Romney at the NAACP convention is yet another data point in what has become an all-too-predictable scenario.

Much of the reason for this stems from the extreme dependency of the Democratic Party on race politics. With union membership dwindling, the party would literally disintegrate without the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Without at least the perception of racism, the Democratic Party has only marginal support. The party is forced to encourage it for its survival.

Snip!

The Democratic Party is then the true racist party, trapped in nostalgia for a time when genuine racism — Jim Crow, etc. — stalked the land. They have to assume significant white racism still exists because not to do so threatens the fabric of their being. A Tea Partier has to be a racist so you can dismiss his ideas without having to confront them or even think about them. Mitt Romney is just another rich white man so you don’t have to deal with what he is saying, you don’t have to evaluate whether he has a solution to a mutual problem.

It’s all racist as I understood the word in the sixties — making assumptions about other people so you don’t have to consider their humanity — only it’s now in reverse. This isn’t to say that whites undergo severe oppression. They don’t. But the racial climate of our society is increasingly polarized and the survival of the Democratic Party, as presently constituted, is the cause. Everyone’s life suffers as a consequence, with the exception perhaps of those who make a living off race-baiting. That the minorities being exploited suffer most of all is almost a cliche. Unfortunately, it also happens to be true.

I have nothing to ad, the article speaks eloquently for itself, other than you can read the entire piece here.

As readers may recall, Hard Astarboard was one of the blogs that whole heartedly supported Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo in his primary bid for the Presidency during the campaign season leading up to November, 2008 elections and the tragic results that placed a Bolshevik Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

Unfortunately, as the very conservative Mr. Tancredo was the liberals’ and therefore mainstream media’s worst nightmare, he was largely ignored by MSM networks and print media and therefore never had much opprtunity to get his message across, eventually dropping out of the primary race.

This past Monday, he had an OpEd in the Washington Times I would have liked to post here, but I’ve been tied up all week and away from any computers.

The Supreme Court twice last week abandoned the Constitution to give new powers to the federal government and the Obama administration. The question for conservatives and patriots is: What can be done about it?

In Monday’s Arizona ruling, the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, creates a totally novel and illogical doctrine of federal pre-emption. In Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. goes through unprecedented contortions to effectively rewrite the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a taxation measure, not an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause.

It will strike many Americans as especially noxious and foolhardy to give Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his Justice Department lawyers such broad discretionary powers of law enforcement when Congress is moving toward removing him from office.

There also is a weird irony and alarming disconnect at play when the Supreme Court says the executive branch may defer to the feelings and interests of foreign governments in enforcing our immigration laws at the same time the Justice Department is under investigation for running an arms-smuggling operation in flagrant violation of Mexico’s sovereignty.

The Arizona ruling is overshadowed by the more far-reaching Obamacare ruling, but it has implications far beyond immigration law. That ruling looks into the constitutional history of pre-emption doctrine and discovers new territory never mapped before. States are forbidden not only to enact laws that go againstfederal law in the realm of immigration, but to enact laws that are totally consistent with federal law and, in fact, support and enhance federal enforcement.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal government is justified in not enforcing a law - and forbidding a state government from such enforcement as well - if its enforcement might trespass on the federal government’s foreign-policy interests. This doctrine opens up a huge can of worms for law enforcement generally, and not just immigration law enforcement.

Mexico and other nations in the people-export business are objecting to enforcement of U.S. immigration law because it adversely affects Mexican nationals living unlawfully in our country. The Supreme Court says this is a legitimate concern of the federal government and therefore a legitimate reason to not enforce laws. To have this idea codified in a Supreme Court ruling, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia, truly boggles the mind.

There are legitimate and well-understood grounds for federal pre-emption when a state legislates in an area which either the Constitution or Congress has claimed for exclusive federal jurisdiction. States cannot establish their own currency or undertake diplomatic relations with foreign nations. But in many areas, Congress has legislated without claiming exclusive jurisdiction, and even when it is claimed, state laws that merely supplement federal law always have been deemed constitutional. Thus, Justice Kennedy had to resort to a tortured reading of congressional intent to reach his decision in the Arizona case.

The article in its entirety is here, and well worth the read.

I just read the latest Ann Coulter, and it’s a hoot (as usual)!

A Michigan legislator, Lisa Brown, gave a speech in the statehouse last week that would have made her right at home in a women’s studies course at a local community college, but a wacko in a group of actual legislators.

She commented on a pending abortion bill by first announcing that she was Jewish, kept kosher, described her various sets of plates, and then saying that Jewish law makes abortion mandatory to save the life of the mother.

This had absolutely nothing to do with the bill being considered, but it may explain why there are no Jewish Tim Tebows.

Then she said: “I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?”

Her smashing crescendo was: “And finally Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no’!”

It’s not clear where Rep. Brown got the idea that the Republican caucus was planning on date-raping her, but I think there’s been a terrible misunderstanding. The bill under consideration merely ensured the safety of women having abortions — and, in a small way, the safety of the fetus, whom the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited legislatures from protecting directly.

SNIP!

I have not polled all the Republicans in the Michigan statehouse yet, but the ones I’ve spoken to assure me that Rep. Brown’s vagina played a very small role in their deliberations. It’s odd that she seems to think she’s the object of so much Republican male fantasy.

Why must a certain type of woman always start shouting about her vagina whenever the topic of abortion comes up?

Do what you want with your vagina. Pro-lifers just want to stop babies from being killed. It would be as though a slaveholder complained that Republicans wanted to regulate his anus by abolishing slavery and taking away his right to crap on his slaves.

For making inappropriate remarks during a legislative session, Brown was prohibited from making floor speeches for one day. Being an hysterical drama queen who believes the Michigan Legislature was thinking about her and her vagina, Rep. Brown responded to the sanction by claiming she had been “silenced.” A vulgarian gets a one-day penalty, and suddenly she’s Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Ann Coulter’s point blank delivery is hell bent on getting coffee all over readers’ keyboards. The manufacturers of same should be sending her a regular stipend for all the replacement keyboards they must sell wholly thanks to her columns.

The entire column is here.

LOL!!!!

From Liberty Extra.

Weapons of Mass Distraction -
Barack Obama Has No Clothes

From 2nd paragraph

Each week, the Obama administration (which has become indistinguishable from the Obama campaign) becomes more reminiscent of the old children’s story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” with the national media elites playing the members of the king’s fawning court, pretending that the president is not naked, that he is, in fact, resplendent in the best finery, and that his ever more absurd pronouncements are somehow credible. The latest issue is same-sex marriage.

Ever since Vice President Joe Blabbermouth, America’s second biggest national embarrassment, was dispatched to announce that he now favors the radical redefinition of marriage, followed in short order by his boss admitting that his position on the issue also has “evolved,” the political chatter on the left has been ridiculous. It reminds me of the snooty townswomen of River City doing their cheep-cheep-pick-a-little number from “The Music Man.” And it brings to mind the question, why now?

The answer seems obvious to those of us who keep our focus on the one topic that will ultimately define the fall campaign (whether the president likes it or not): the nation’s teetering economy. As a committed leftist, Barack Obama should be proud of his record. He has done some very profound things in his three-and-a-half years as president. He should be proud of his multi-billion dollar government bailout of the United Auto Workers, his trillion dollar “stimulus package” (which seems to have stimulated nothing other than his friends and campaign bundlers in the nation’s public sector unions and the industry known laughingly as “solar energy”), and, of course, his crowning achievement, Obamacare.

Read On.

I couldn’t agree more!

Yes, still a third post today, I am really feeling my proverbial oats…

The latest Ann Coulter column, Deport the GOP Establishment, addresses a couple of highly addressable situations, such as:

On no issue is the elite/American divide so great as on immigration. For decades, a majority of Americans have wanted to decrease immigration. Not just illegal immigration — all immigration.

Nearly three times as many Americans support reducing immigration as want it to stay the same, according to Gallup polls. A grand total of 5 percent of the population want to increase legal immigration — 10 times less than want to decrease it. I myself would like to deport the people responsible for our current immigration policies.

Me, too!

Our official policy is to turn away scientists in order to make room for illiterate Pakistani peasants who will drop out of high school to man coffee carts until deciding to plot a terrorist attack against the United States. That’s this week’s immigration poster boy, Najibullah Zazi.

Zazi’s own step-uncle said of him: “He was a dumb kid, believe me.” Our immigration officials said, WELCOME, ZAZI!… Oops, sorry Swedish scientists and nuclear engineers — no room for you.

In February, Zazi pleaded guilty in a plot to bomb the New York City subway.

One of his co-conspirators, Zarein Ahmedzay, was welcomed from Afghanistan to America because he was willing to do a job no American would: drive a cab. Where are you going to find an American with a driver’s license?

This week, a third accomplice, Adis Medunjanin, was convicted in the subway conspiracy. Medunjanin came from Bosnia and became an American citizen — a priceless gift to The New York Times, which was then able to begin its article on his convictions: “An American citizen was convicted of a host of terrorism charges on Tuesday …”

For this we can thank the late, lamented Teddy Kennedy, who altered our immigration laws in 1965 to ensure massive immigration from the Third World while severely limiting the number of Europeans who could come here.

****Interruption: At 5th Avenue and Central Park North (110th Street) in Manhattan lies Duke Ellington Circle, a small traffic circle that includes a statue, high on a platform, of Duke Ellington standing beside a piano.

Until I saw the commemmoration plaque, I had no idea Duke’s full name was Edward Kennedy Ellington.

Thank God the great musician came first, and wasn’t named after the late Teddy K! ****

Democrats look at immigration as a way to increase their voter rolls, and Republicans look at immigration as a way to get cheap labor for big business. Any Americans who disagree with our all-Third World immigration flow are called “racists.”

This is why Democrats and establishment Republicans are desperate to talk Mitt Romney into flip-flopping on his immigration positions. He’s with Americans.

In a novel thought, Romney proposes that we grant citizenship to people who would make America a better place, repeatedly saying that he would like to “staple a green card” to the diplomas of foreigners who receive Ph.D.s in math or the hard sciences. He may be the first national politician in two generations who thinks we should use legal immigration to get our average up.

Read the entire column…

Well, we guess we know whom Ann Coulter’s voting for, but then again, so are we here at Hard Astarboard. It’s got to be Mitt Romney, though he wasn’t the first choice here — the first choice, whom I still believe would have been our best bet, was Axelrodded out of the game early on via some trumped up scandals using some really pathetic, opportunistic women.

However, now that we’re getting down to the wire (it’s obviously going to be a Romney vs Barack Hussein election), we right thinking Americans (those of us who respect and revere the Constitution and who believe the U.S.A. is worth more than third world country or former Eastern Bloc status) have to get on the same side rather than sit out the election or vote for any third party candidates — Obama must go, he must be defeated this November.

When I first arrived in America, I was in my late teens and Richard M. Nixon was in the White House. Now it’s 7 presidents later and I still haven’t seen a president with whom I’ve found even a tenth as many reasons not to be reelected as Obama; he even makes Carter look almost palatable by comparison, and that says a lot.

But back to Coulter on Romney, Ann tells a few truths here that need to be read by every conservative in the country.

The actual Republican Establishment –- political consultants, The Wall Street Journal, corporate America, former Bush advisers and television pundits — are exhorting Mitt Romney to flip-flop on his very non-Establishment position on illegal immigration.

Both as governor of Massachusetts and as a presidential candidate, Romney has supported a fence on the border, E-Verify to ensure that employees are legal and allowing state police to arrest illegal aliens. He is the rare Republican who recognizes that in-state tuition, driver’s licenses and amnesty are magnets for more illegal immigration.

These positions are totally at odds with Establishment Republicans who pander to the business lobby by supporting the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration, and then accuse Americans opposed to a slave labor class in America of racism. If this continues, America will become California and no Republican will ever be elected president again. Big business doesn’t care and Establishment Republicans are too stupid to notice.

If you’re not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: “Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I’m paying?” Press “1″ to answer in English.

If the answer is “no,” illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.

LOL!

Romney is one of the few Republicans to recognize that there is no need to “round up” illegal aliens (in the lingo of amnesty supporters) to get them to go home. Illegal aliens will leave the same way they arrived. They decided to walk across the border to get jobs — and welfare, apparently — and they’ll walk back across the border as soon as the jobs and welfare dry up.

Obama has a similar plan, but instead of using E-Verify to stop illegal aliens from taking American jobs, he did it by destroying the entire job market. Hmmmm, drug-war ravaged Ciudad Juarez, or Obama’s America … I’ll take Juarez! Under the booming economy President Romney is going to produce, we’re going to need a really high fence.

It didn’t take a government administrator “rounding up” foreigners and putting them on buses to get 20 million illegal aliens here, and it won’t take a government program “rounding them up” to get them home.

While Romney’s views on immigration are wildly popular with Americans, they are extremely unpopular with the Republican Establishment sucking up to business interests — Bush, Rove, McCain, Huckabee, Perry, Gingrich, Giuliani, Krauthammer, Kristol, Gillespie, etc, etc.

(Maybe it’s the Establishment that’s been calling Romney “Establishment.”)

Ann Coulter’s entire column is here.

Go, Ann!