…with the World Government crowd.

Interestingly, it seems to begin with the two leaders showing their disdain for one another…

France may be America’s oldest ally, but the presidents of the two countries are not exactly the best of buddies.

When President Obama visited Paris in June, he declined a dinner invitation from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, even though he had no evening plans and was staying just a few doors down from the Elysee Palace.

The brushoff followed a more substantive snubbing, when the French president turned down a U.S. request to put more troops into Afghanistan. Mr. Obama responded by sending a letter to former French President Jacques Chirac expressing his desire to “work together … to build a safer world.”

The petite but fiery Sarko was reportedly livid.

So when he arrived in the U.S. on Monday, Mr. Sarkozy went not to Washington but to New York, where he delivered a speech at Columbia University.

There, he mocked Mr. Obama’s recent health care reform victory, saying “if you want me to be really honest, when we see the U.S. debate on the health care reform from Europe, it’s difficult to believe. … Excuse me, but we’ve solved this problem more than 50 years ago.”

With the supreme dismissiveness only a Frenchman can pull off, he added: “Welcome to the club of states who don’t turn their back on the sick and the poor. … If you come to France and something happens to you, you won’t be asked for your credit card before you’re rushed to the hospital.”

When Mr. Sarkozy finally came to Washington, he stopped first at the Capitol, where he met with 2004 failed presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. There, he pledged to help enact global taxes on countries that resist steps to fight climate change.

Emphasis mine.

Did I mention the World Government crowd?

…and then making nice for the media as all diplocrites do.

With lunch finished, it was finally time to go to the White House to meet with the U.S. president. After a private meeting in the Oval Office, the two repaired to the East Room for a joint news conference, where it was all happiness and light.

Mr. Obama welcomed “my dear friend” and proceeded to call the French president by his first name eight times. “The fact that Nicolas went to Ben’s Chili Bowl for lunch, I think, shows his discriminating palate,” he said to laughter from Mr. Sarkozy. Mr. Obama, reading from notes, praised his counterpart for his “legendary energy” before ticking off a series of issues on which the two agree.

{Truncating here}

Unlike the Obamas in Paris, the Sarkozys accepted an invitation to dine in the White House, joining the first couple in the residence for a private dinner. And the two leaders, perhaps the hatchet finally buried, left the stage together, with Mr. Obama’s arm draped around the shoulder of his smiling French counterpart.

Yes, I did mention the World Government crowd.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday praised President Obama’s health care overhaul, called his push for stricter financial regulations “great news” and, standing alongside Mr. Obama at the White House, said he hopes their administrations can team up “to go even further in regulating world capitalism.”

Mr. Sarkozy, a fierce advocate for tougher rules on global financial markets, said France will use its position next year as leader of a group of the world’s top finance ministers to push for a new economic regulatory regime.

“During the French presidency of the G-20, [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner, [French Finance Minister] Christine Lagarde are going to be working hand-in-glove in order to go even further in regulating world capitalism, and in particular, raising the issue of a new world international monetary order,” Mr. Sarkozy told French and American reporters gathered at the White House in a brief joint appearance.

For his part, Mr. Obama said world leaders must take actions to ensure that “reckless speculation or reckless risk-taking by a few big players in the financial markets will never again threaten the global economy or burden taxpayers.”

“I will continue to work with President Sarkozy and other world leaders to coordinate our efforts, because we want to make sure that whatever steps were taking, they are occurring on both sides of the Atlantic,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Sarkozy also took a moment to tell his host “how glad” France is for the U.S. that Mr. Obama’s health-care legislation passed.

Of course he did, because now the United States will be joining France and other socialist shitholes in the slide to gross economic failure.

Meanwhile, the two weasels, along with others of their ilk to be found under the large portside stone known as the European Union, will work to force other countries’ leaders to “tow the line” in the true spirit of national sovereignty-hating globalists.

An example was set back in the late 1990s, spearheaded by Bubba Clinton and his EU and UN butt buddies: What happened to Slobodin Milosevic can happen to you.

When Sarkozy was first elected, it seemed like we had a real ally in the French president. It’s a comedown to realize that all we got was another feckless French socialist.

I’ll tell you, friends, having grown up in America in the 1950s and 1960s, I’m beginning to suspect that somewhere along the line I was somehow transported to another dimension…

Yeah, a second post again today.

One of the columnists in the Santa Monica Daily Press is the proverbial breath of fresh air, as while the wafer-thin paper is a liberal publication in a mega-liberal municipality, Mr. Breen’s output is two-fisted conservatism that shows no quarter but is fraught with humor at the same time (of course, so-called “progressives” are pretty easy to laugh at, when you get right down to it).

I love Breen’s columns and never miss them.

So, below, I give you a copy & paste of his column today, Too Big To Fail.

Enjoy!

Environmentalists hate people. Homo sapiens are the enemies of nature and it doesn’t matter if your family has been hereditary farmers or ranchers for generations, there is always some dirty Greenpeace hippie armed with a flatulently inflated pseudo-degree in eco-busy-body-ology that considers you a criminal if your livelihood is a danger to the existence of some mutated dung beetle.

The mentality of these enviro-weenies, who wouldn’t even know how to feed an air fern, is: “I have a college degree, still live in the basement of my parent’s house, but I am an ‘eco-expert.’ What could some yahoo farmer possibly tell me about raising free-range tofurkeys?”

Six weeks ago when I began this series on the U.S. government-induced drought of the farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley, I had a U.S. Fish and Wildlife public relations flack — Steve Martarano — respond to my initial article within six hours after it hit the newsstands. Folks, as a famous nobody I’m lucky if my local detractors harangue me within six days after I publish. Anyway, Mr. Martarano made a feeble attempt to school me on the relative merits of putting farm workers into food lines through a series of op-ed pieces which were written by global warming-friendly columnists that downplayed the importance of the people who grow our food over a near extinct minnow that has an indiscernible earthly merit.

I indulged Mr. Martarano with my customarily impolite demeanor which I reserve for unctuously lazy bureaucrats and informed him that while he was decidedly full of crap, I was also exuberantly grateful that he chose to recognize that I was obviously game to the enviro-con job which he was tasked to disseminate and that I couldn’t buy that kind of public recognition. Never forget that the grand-daddy of the “public relations” industry was Josef Goebbels who believed that the best lies are usually the biggest ones told over and over again. It’s what has made Al Gore half-a-billion dollars richer.

But, there is good news! Is it an inconvenient truth that in order to bribe two recalcitrant Democrat congressmen, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, into voting for ObamaCare, the Department of Interior announced on March 16 that it was graciously increasing the Central Valley’s water ration despite a federal judge’s court order? I guess the survival of the delta smelt or obeying the law isn’t very important even if you have to hold farm workers hostage to pass an unpopular partisan healthcare bill.

One evening, over scorched red meat, cigars and single-malt scotch with my son Nathan and fellow columnist Dave Alsabery, we expounded upon the concept of “Schrodinger’s Fetish.” This “fetish” has its roots in the paradoxical thought experiment of Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger’s infamously imaginary “cat in a box” whereby, according to quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, that a cat in a box might be alive or dead depending on an earlier entangling random event.

When this thought experiment is applied to the global warming fetishists of enviro-dorkdom, one could only reasonably conclude that environmentalism’s intellectual life or death is dependent on earlier entangling random events such as the leaked Climategate e-mails, the IPCC’s retreat from several of their key global warming positions and Greenpeace leader, Gerd Leipold, admitting that Greenpeace has lied and exaggerated about global warming and melting polar ice caps regardless of Milankovitch’s spank-me-Daddy solar calculations to the contrary.

Meanwhile, the Chicken Littles of environmental doom and gloom are running around and spewing stupid, not only from the lowliest clipboard cuckhold standing outside of Starbucks, but into the rarefied air of corporate America.

Ted Turner, owner of CNN (Commie News Network) and global warming Pimp-asaurus Rex claimed two years ago during a PBS interview that, “Not doing [anything] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10, but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”

Wow! Cannibals?

Yes, folks, you are destined to be cannibals if you don’t recycle your trash into the proper receptacles or drive a Prius. But if we’re doomed to be dinner, Michael Moore or Rosie O’donnell would be considered the main entree at any Hometown Buffet … for weeks!

Speaking of whale sushi, why is that Santa Monica’s moral relativity rears its head over a few pounds of whale meat while celebrating to sacramental levels a few pounds of locally aborted baby fetuses? It’s a simple demonstration of liberalism’s faux-rage and moral equivalency that dead whales are more important than dead babies.

Or as Ted Turner might intone, “Save the whales, be a cannibal.”

…there are so many things to criticize, at least unless one is a mega-leftist wingnut, that is, where the tragedy/travesty that is today’s presidential administration and congressional majority are concerned, that there’s a veritable smorgasbord of subject material to choose from.

For example, a great post at Red State.

Yesterday the White House went bonkers when several large corporations announced via their SEC filings that they were taking about $1.5 Billion in losses this quarter because of one provision in the health care takeover bill Obama signed into law last week. The Wall Street Journal estimates Obamacare will cost the Fortune 500 some $14 Billion in this single provision.

They trotted out the hapless Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, to deny basic laws of economics and according to some reports White House aides were directly calling and berating company executives who were complying with federal law.

Henry Waxman took a brief hiatus from braiding his nose hair to announce that he would hold hearings to determine why these imbeciles had fraudulently declared Obamacare would cost them money when everyone knows it is the key to balancing the budget and retiring the national debt. According to him:

The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.

In fact, Waxman asserts that the losses run counter to a report prepared by the Business Roundtable predicting the health care takeover would reduce health insurance costs to businesses by $3,000 per person…

Read the entire post here.

The lies, misrepresentations, fabricated math and general duplicity employed by Obama and the Pelosified marxist Congress followed by a flabbergasted, “I don’t believe it! We’ll convene an investigation at once!” reaction when the bullshirt gives way to reality is almost laughable until one remembers that at the bottom line lies the future, or lack thereof, of our beloved republic.

Moving right along, as they (whoever they are) say, I just thought I’d paste in a copy of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Give it a read, then match it up against anything Barack Hussein Obama and/or the House and Senate have thusfar passed or are preparing to legislate, remembering that the following is what you might call the Employee Handbook of U.S. Governance. If something is not included in the list below, Congress can’t (without committong a felony, as far as I’m concerned) do it:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

…post today, given the following.

Bret Stephens had a must-share opinion column in Wall Street Journal Online titled Lady Gaga Versus Middle East Peace.

Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?

If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.

Heh, heh. Mr. Stephens hit the nail right on the head with that one.

You have to wonder, however, if the Obama Administration really believes (a), though, or are merely using that POV as a political tool as they use everything else. As we know, veracity, morality, patriotism, ethics, loyalty to the American people or even logic are all of secondary importance to the current president and his cadre when it comes to pushing one of their very un-American agendas (then again, what other kinds of agendas do they embrace?).

The definition of a “fact” with those critters is anything they have to say to get what they want, and they most definitely entertain some profound malevolence for Israel, so with that in mind…

What is that wisdom? In a March 26 column in Human Events, Mr. Buchanan put the case with his usual subtlety:

“Each new report of settlement expansion,” he wrote, “each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Mr. Buchanan was playing off a story in the Israeli press that Vice President Joe Biden had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “what you’re doing here [in the West Bank] undermines the security of our troops.” Also in the mix was a story that Centcom commander David Petraeus had cited Arab-Israeli tensions as the key impediment to wider progress in the region. Both reports were later denied—in Mr. Biden’s case, via Rahm Emanuel; in Gen. Petraeus’s case, personally and forcefully—but the important point is how eagerly they were believed. If you’re of the view that Israel is the root cause of everything that ails the Middle East—think of it as global warming in Hebrew form—then nothing so powerfully makes the case against the Jewish state as a flag-draped American coffin.

Being me, I had to emphasize that part, LOL.

Anyone in the United States who isn’t brain dead, brain-washed by the evil, sleazy, treasonous, communist mainstream media, deaf, dumb and blind or just plain stupid knew long before Barack Hussein Obama was elected that he was going to go after Israel right out of the gate; after all, they are the sworn enemy of his people.

It must be tough, having to carry the torch for both Islamic jihadis and socialists at the same time.

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called “the American Temptress.”

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis “In the Shade of the Quran” is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb gave his account of the U.S. “in the scale of human values.” “I fear,” he wrote, “that a balance may not exist between America’s material greatness and the quality of her people.” Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “primitiveness” of American values, not least in matters of sex.

“The American girl,” he noted, “knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” Nor did he approve of Jazz—”this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires”—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Whoa!!!!

Read the rest here.

…that the bad guys really are winning.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which posted hundreds of civilian volunteers along the U.S.-Mexico border over the past five years, has disbanded, citing what it called “rising aggression” in the country and decisions by lawmakers in Washington who have “pushed amnesty down our throats.”

“The mental attitude of many Americans is turning meaner … and we are concerned that this could cause problems,” MCDC President Carmen Mercer told The Washington Times on Monday. “You see aggression surfacing even at the tea party marches. We just did not want to deal with the liability anymore.

“We have to protect the ranchers as well as the volunteers,” Ms. Mercer said, noting the killing on Saturday of Robert Krentz, a prominent Douglas, Ariz., rancher who was shot along with his dog on his ranch by a suspected illegal immigrant who fled into Mexico and remains a fugitive.

Nothing like a government run by people who apparently believe that their mission in life is to destroy the country they “govern” by any means they deem necessary.

“From the surveillance videos we have gathered in the field over the past six months, it is more than evident the violators of our borders seem to have been given carte blanche permission to willfully violate our public safety,” the message said.

She also said that the MCDC volunteers would be returning to the border to tell Mr. Obama that his immigration policy is wrong and to send a message to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that she is “an unqualified buffoon who risks the lives of American citizens every day she is the head of DHS.”

Emphasis mine.

…an unqualified buffoon who risks the lives of American citizens every day she is the head of DHS. Spot on!

Read on.

…such as policies guaranteed to disintegrate any vestiges of America as it was prior to his inauguration, rendering our very Constitution a vague memory, doing unto whatever is left of our economy as the “fat broad” in the B.C. cartoon does unto the snake, diluting our Homeland Security capabilities and embracing any policy he can, such as Cap & Trade and amnesty for illegal aliens, that will create ever-increasing unemployment for Americans (the more unemployed, the more will be dependent upon the government for their daily bread), Mr. Big Shot Obama, the self styled king of America and indeed of the world, takes his mantra of change to limits that boggle the mind, even to treating the leaders of nations we have long enjoyed friendly relations with, in fact long-time allies, as though they were of less than secondary importance.

Good one, Michael Barone!

Barack Obama’s decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia and Australia — to a democracy with the world’s largest Muslim population and to the only nation that has fought alongside us in all the wars of the last century — is of a piece with his foreign policy generally: Attack America’s friends and kowtow to our enemies.

Examples run from Britain to Israel. Early in his administration, Obama returned a bust of Churchill that the British government had loaned the White House after 9/11. Then Obama gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that don’t work on British machines and that Brown, who has impaired vision, would have trouble watching anyway.

More recently Obama summoned Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, permitted no photographs, laid down nonnegotiable demands and went off to dinner.

Yeah, that Barack Hussein Osama Obama can sure pontificate. He is such a big shot, our community organizer king who uses his authority, both real and perceived (see U.S. Constitution), to undermine what it took our great nation two centuries to achieve.

Some may attribute these slights to biases inherited from the men who supplied the titles of Obama’s two books. Perhaps like Barack Obama Sr., he regards the British as evil colonialists. Or perhaps like his preacher for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he regards Israel as an evil oppressor.

But the list of American friends Obama has slighted is long. It includes Poland and the Czech Republic (anti-missile program canceled), Honduras (backing the constitutionally ousted president), Georgia (no support against Russia) and Colombia and South Korea (no action on pending free-trade agreements).

In the meantime Obama sends yearly greetings to (as he puts it) the Islamic Republic of Iran, exchanges friendly greetings with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, caves to Russian demands on arms control and sends a new ambassador to Syria.

On the topic of Obama’s treatment of Israel, my favorite liberal, former New York mayor Ed Koch, has a few things to say.

President Obama’s abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, “Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades.
Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to.”

Treating our best (and actually only real) friend in the Middle East like a red headed step-child, humiliating Netanyahu with malice aforethought.

President Obama’s abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, “Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades.

Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to.”

Especially those Muslim countries who have long chaffed at the bit to wipe Israel off the map, who saw the United States the major obstacle to that ambition.

Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama — 78 percent of the Jewish community did — believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel’s enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.

Mr. Koch’s entire column can be read here.

What a disgrace it is, and a humiliation to me, as an American, that our countrymen could have elected someone like Obama to the highest office in the land!

Depends upon what you mean by “care”, here.

Wolf here.

I ran across an interesting article by retired constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, who writes:

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

I hope all the mulletheads who voted in both the lefty congressional majority and Obama, the traitor and enemy of the state in POTUS’ clothing, read and enjoy reading herein what they are responsible for.

The entire article is here.

…isn’t this lovely.

A top FBI official warned today that many cyber-adversaries of the U.S. have the ability to access virtually any computer system, posing a risk that’s so great it could “challenge our country’s very existence.”

Why not?

We’ve already been transformed into an impending socialist shithole by the marxist toilet cakes voted into government leadership by a whole bunch of people who either didn’t take the time to learn how our political system works, nor to study the pedigrees and voting histories of their candidates before voting for them — the only exceptions being those, of course, who despise the entire concept of America as our founders intended it to be. You know, this free, successful, two century old nation that has, as the leftist scum have gradually succeeded more and more in their efforts to destroy it, begun to enter what might well be its last days.

But I digress.

For the last three decades or so, our government and our vital infrastructure have become gradually more computerized, as have private concerns that possess the personal information of millions. Our defense, security and financial organs can now all be compromized and breached electronically.

Steven Chabinsky, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, delivered a strong and urgent warning about the threat of cyberattacks during a presentation Tuesday at the FOSE government IT trade show here. Chabinsky also offered recommendations for countering the threat, including rules that would restrict the ability of some systems to interoperate with more vulnerable ones.

“The cyber threat can be an existential threat — meaning it can challenge our country’s very existence, or significantly alter our nation’s potential,” Chabinsky said. “How we rise to the cybersecurity challenge will determine whether our nation’s best days are ahead of us or behind us.

Thrilling.

“I am convinced that given enough time, motivation and funding, a determined adversary will always — always — be able to penetrate a targeted system,” he added.

Which is about the same thing any competent security professional will tell you about pretty much any protective issue, but… it kinda’ sorta’ sucks to see computer and communications technology, billed to make everything so much easier, faster and more efficient, also render us vulnerable in an extreme, perhaps making for a majorly uneven trade-off.

Chabinsky said that terrorism is the FBI’s top cyber priority, followed by its investigation of foreign countries “that seek every day to steal our state secrets and private sector intellectual property, sometimes for the purpose of undermining the stability of our government by weakening our economic or military supremacy.”

Both terrorists and foreign countries are turning to cyber-technologies “to exploit our weaknesses,” Chabinsky said.

Isn’t that a cheerful thought!

…what if there was a revolution? I mean, what if Americans flatly refused to acknowledge laws stemming from the ObamaCare debacle and started cleaning their weapons, so to speak?

How could anyone call it treason, or otherwise condemn it, when all that these rebels would be doing was emulating our nation’s founders?

The American Revolution was fought, after all, to gain freedom from a kind of tyranny that, in truth, was not much different from what we are experiencing now under the Obama regime — yes, I said regime, not administration.

We, The People, are being ruled by officials elected, according to the Constitution, to govern according to the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yet here we are, having come full circle, so in the spirit of America, it seems to me that if there were a revolution, it should ideally be a short one — it would be an act of treason, in my opinion, for any U.S. serviceman, Law Enforcement officer or other American citizen in a position to do so to take up arms against the people if we got it into our heads to do exactly as our founding fathers did in the 1770s, taking our country away from those who would tax us into oblivion and dictate to us.

These politicians have violated the Constitution which is, given their oaths of office and the nature of their jobs, a federal crime in itself.

So, the Obama Administration and the Democrats in the House and Senate, those who voted for the “HealthCare” bill, are technically all felons, no matter what they and their sycophantic arse creepers of the lefty media say about it.

Doesn’t that make the President and his congressional majority a “renegade” criminal government, anyway, and certainly even less valid than that of the late King George?

…of the ObamaCare vote, which at this point seems to be one of the few things that stand between what America was founded and then succeeded as, and its tragic transformation into a socialist state, I ran across this article by Robert F. Turner.

As a scholar who has studied and revered the Constitution for more than four decades, watching the behavior of our Congress in recent years has been all too often a depressing experience. One wonders whether some legislators have even bothered to read the Constitution, or if the problem is they simply don’t care about the oath they took to support it.

While doing research for my doctoral dissertation many years ago, I had the pleasure of reading extensively from the Annals of Congress, notes from Cabinet meetings of early presidents, and a great deal of other historical material while seeking to understand portions of our Constitution. In the process, I found myself marveling both at how remarkably well-read the Framers were - encountering frequent references to the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Vattel, and other prominent 17th- and 18th-century thinkers - and also at the high principles repeatedly expressed by members of both political branches of our government when novel issues surfaced.

The pedigree of people we elect to Congress has evidently changed.

Sadly, the latest parliamentary shenanigans in the House, to pretend that the Senate health care bill has already been signed into law so that the (non)law can be “amended” immediately to secure enough House votes for passage, is but par for the course. It is no better than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attempt to use Congress’ rule-making power to deny future Congresses their constitutional right to repeal or amend a previous law by majority vote. Section 3403 of the bill passed by the Senate provides: “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The Constitution can’t be changed by statute, and it certainly can’t be changed by amending House or Senate rules.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution sets forth detailed requirements for the making or amending of a law, specifying that “Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary” shall be presented to and approved by the president (or enacted over his veto) - so as to prevent unprincipled legislators from bypassing the procedural necessities by the kind of semantical chicanery currently being contemplated by House leaders.

Mr. Turner finishes the column in spot-on fashion.

At some point, if we are to have any chance of preserving our magnificent Constitution, the American people are going to have to start saying “no” and holding legislators accountable at the polls for violating their oaths of office. The senators and representatives we elect were intended to be servants of the people, not a special class of aristocrats empowered to rule our lives while remaining aloof from the very laws they enact. Writing in Federalist No. 57, James Madison assured the American people that one of the checks against legislative abuse of power was that Congress could “make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” One can only wonder what the Obamacare vote would be if it applied to members of Congress and their staffs.

After nearly four decades of watching our elected representatives flout their solemn duty and evade the burdens they impose upon the rest of us, I have finally concluded that the time has come to start voting against incumbents who behave as if they are the rulers rather than the servants of the American people.

Me, I’d vote ‘em all out, Left, Right and Independent and elect all Senators and Representatives from among candidates who have never held political office before and impose term limits — one single 6 year term, thus eliminating any ambitions for reelection, leaving them focused solely on their duties as representatives of the will of their constituents, the folks who put them in office.