Well, close to it, if even a major player in the LDQ (Liberal Democrat Quagmire) is to be believed.

The video below comes courtesy of Conservative Byte.com

Perhaps Mr. O ought to just put together a daily terrorists’ briefing package to make things a little easier for America’s enemies, for whom he seems to hold a great deal of affection…

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.

What’s this world coming to?

From the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA):

Disinformation Continues as U.N. Arms Treaty Takes Shape
In New York this week, the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty continued trying to draft a treaty to impose worldwide controls on small arms, including civilian-owned firearms.

The NRA has made clear its opposition to any treaty that includes civilian firearms, and continues to note that a majority of the United States Senate stands with American gun owners in opposition to such a treaty. We have led the effort to mobilize opposition to the treaty in Congress, and not only a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, but also 130 House members, have voiced strong opposition to the treaty. Ignoring that reality, U.N. conferees are working to regulate not only civilian small arms, but also ammunition and firearm parts.

Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie.

A bald faced lie? Coming from what Seth calls “the port side?”!? Nahhhh…..

Yeah, right…

For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the “end user” of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an “end user” and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

And even if the U.S. never ratifies–or even signs–the treaty, many other nations will. The cost of complying with the treaty would drive up the price of imported firearms and probably force some companies to take their products off the U.S. market.

That’s not all. This week, the delegates focused on an endless series of drafts that would either ban exportation or require states to consider the risk of exporting, if the arms could be used to commit crime, or could “be diverted to unauthorized end users” or “the illicit market.” Exports could also be blocked if they would “support” or “encourage” terrorist acts or “provoke, prolong or aggravate acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,” or could be used in “gender-based violence” or to inflict “human suffering.” Anti-gun activists here and abroad have long claimed that gun ownership in general does all of these things, so any of these provisions could be abused by foreign governments to shut off exports to law-abiding Americans

The article is here.

Thank the Lord for organizations like the NRA, there to confront the liars of this world who, in emulation of the communists who so inspire those who lie to the people in order to deprive us of our freedom so they may rule, never cease to chip away at the liberty that is the foundation of our great nation.

From Patriot Update:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

If your Second Amendment rights are important to you, definitely watch the video.

It’s beginning to seem — no, actually it began to seem a long time ago — like the T in TSA stands for “Tragedy”.

If Seth, being the security professional hereabouts and the most loudly vocal critic of the Transportation “Security” Administration I have the pleasure of knowing, were posting this one, I’m sure he’d have some choice epithets.

From CSN News:

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved flight training for 25 illegal aliens at a Boston-area flight school that was owned by yet another illegal alien, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The illegal-alien flight-school attendees included eight who had entered the country illegally and 17 who had overstayed their allowed period of admission into the United States, according to an audit by the GAO.

Six of the illegal aliens were actually able to get pilot’s licenses.

I wonder if “Gadzooks!” would be considered sufficiently strong to cover this piece of news…

Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Ala.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, said he found the GAO’s findings “amazing.”

Indeed!

“We have cancer patients, Iraq War veterans and Nobel Prize winners all forced to undergo rigorous security checks before getting on an airplane,” said Rogers, “and at the same time, ten years after 9/11, there are foreign nationals in the United States trained to fly just like Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers did, and not all of them are necessarily getting a security background check.”

Stephen Lord, who is the GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, testified about the matter Wednesday in Rogers’ subcommittee. Rogers asked him: “Isn’t it true that, based on your report, the Transportation Security Administration cannot assure the American people that foreign terrorists are not in this country learning how to fly airplanes, yes or no?”

Lord responded: “At this time, no.”

Although the illegal alien who owned the Massachusetts flight school had not undergone a required TSA security threat assessment and had not been approved for flight training by the agency, he nonetheless held two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pilot licenses, also known as FAA certificates.

Read the entire article here.

What kind of government are we running here, exactly? More to the point, what kind of people are these politicians we elect to protect us hiring to supervise these efforts? Can you imagine such incompetent people holding a job, for any length of time, in the private sector?

Seth has long advocated extracting the politics from the business of protecting the people and placing qualified, dedicated professionals in charge of these efforts, people who have literally been there and done that, rather than PhDs owed political favors by career politicians for getting their worthless hides elected.

As taxpaying citizens, a form of paying customer, we are surely entitled to some bang for our buck, and I’m not referring to the kind of “bang” we’ll get if these idiots don’t start doing what we pay them to do.

In a recent post, one of our favorite fellow bloggers, Always on Watch, commented on President Obama’s entertaining Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood terrorist leader at the White House.

Hmmmm…

Now we also see where, well, our government under Obama’s “leadership” evidently has a problem classifying a terrorist organization…a terrorist organization.

In the past three years, over 1,000 Christians in Nigeria have been brutally murdered by an extremist Islamic group known as Boko Haram and the United States has refused to classify the group as being a terrorist organization.

Nigeria’s Christian leaders had asked the United States government to place Boko Haram on the list of terrorist organizations. The radical Islamic group has vowed to eradicate all Christians from Nigerian soil and will continue to murder men, women and children in the process unless something is done to stop them.

Instead of declaring Boko Haram a terrorist organization, the U.S. government only placed three of the group’s leaders on a terrorist blacklist and then said that it was more important to address social inequalities in the country first. Christian leaders in Nigeria said the actions or perhaps lack of action by the United States has only served to make the group bolder and more aggressive in their pursuit to exterminate the remaining Christians.

Appearing before House Foreign Affairs Committee, Christian Association of Nigeria President Ayo Oritsejafor said the decision was:

“The equivalent of designating (Osama) bin Laden a terrorist but failing to designate Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization.”

“By refusing to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, the United States is sending a very clear message, not just to the federal government of Nigeria, but to the world that the murder of innocent Christians and Muslims who reject Islamism — and I make a clear distinction here between Islam and Islamism — are acceptable losses.”

Of course, and par for the course given whom we’ve got in the Oval Office at present:

However, Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Johnny Carson told the committee that designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization would be counter-productive in trying to improve the governing of Nigeria, especially in the Muslim dominated northern region.

Carson testified,

“Boko Haram thrives because of social and economic problems in the north that the government must find a way of addressing.”

“A coordinated government effort to provide responsible, accountable governance to all Nigerians, while creating opportunities for economic growth, will diminish the political space in which Boko Haram operates.”

From everything I’ve read, Boko Haram is just like so many other Muslim groups that have vowed to cleanse their lands of Christians and Jews. In reality, they are not any different than Hamas or al-Qaeda.

What concerns me about Carson’s comments is that it sounds like he wants the U.S. to start pouring millions of dollars into northern Nigeria to ease their financial strain in hopes that Boko Haram will stop murdering Christians. This is a typical Democratic response to any problem – throw money at it and hope it fixes the problem, which it never does.

Amen to that!

At least we know that in his own roundabout way, Barack Hussein Obama is protecting his kindred spirits, the Boko Haram, which I suppose proves a kind of loyalty… just not to anyone we’d assume a U.S. president might be loyal to.

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.

I want to explain (blame?) my seeming neglect of the blog these last several days.

Blame Seth! That’s it, blame Seth!

You see, he has this reading list at one of the email sites I am tasked with monitoring for him, books he’s read that he recommends, and every once in awhile I visit the list and obtain one or two of the books on it, then read them.

In some ways, I find it a neat way of trying to understand our friend better.

Jeez, what I got myself into this time out! I went to a list he titled “Deep Stuff” and selected two:

The First Circle by Alexander Solzhenitzin, and

The Way To Language by Martin Heidegger

The first was enjoyable to read and pretty much flowed with its wide cast of characters, the author’s way of defining each and the sequence of events. The author’s sense of humor reminded me just a little of Seth’s, as well.

The Heidegger, which I’m most of the way through, was difficult to find (I finally did at a used book store in Manhattan) and is, indeed, deep! Henceforth, I will show a lot more respect to those I meet who devote the majority of their academic years to Philosophy.

Seth has some other work by Martin Heidegger on the list, but I think I’ll pass for the time being, as practically every paragraph seems like a separate college course (just kidding… I think…)…

Now, nearing completion of the book, which is a translation of lectures on language by the author, I suppose I should get back to blogging.

So, with no further ado…

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.

This “problem” will obviously not go away by itself.

NAIROBI, Kenya - Islamic terrorist gunmen killed two policemen guarding a church, snatched their rifles and then opened fire on the congregation with bullets and grenades on Sunday, killing at least 10 people and wounding at least 40, security officials said.

Terrorists from Somalia were immediately suspected.

Police commander Philip Ndolo said the bloodiest attack was on the African Inland Church in Garissa, a town some 195 kilometers (120 miles) west of the Somali border.

Attackers threw two grenades inside the church, only one of which exploded, Ndolo said. But as the congregation stampeded out of the church, gunmen opened fire, doing significantly more damage. Ten people died and about 37 were wounded at the church, Ndolo said.

Another security official, though, said that two attackers walked up to the two policemen guarding the church, shot them at point-blank range and took their rifles. The gunmen then opened fire on the church and threw the grenades. The official spoke only on condition he wasn’t identified because he is not allowed to speak to media.

The police were guarding the church because of the perilous security situation near the border with Somalia and because Somalia’s Islamist militants have made Christian churches a common target.

While Seth and Wolf have long held that the “only way to deal with these folks is the Root & Branch approach”, I have been a little more moderate as I know many Muslims, immigrants from Islamic countries, here in New York who are peaceful and peace loving and who seem as distressed at all the violence tht goes on in the name of their religion as the test of us are.

However, when so much grief is pouring unendingly out of one essential community in a nonstop, mindless manner for so long, we truly need to draw some sort of a line.

The political correctness our liberals peddle and the interference running B.S. that jihadi protective and apologist organizations like CAIR shovel out are simply not cutting it, these mad dogs within the world community of Islam are still coming out of the proverbial woodwork, still murdering, destroying…causing mayhem.

Meanwhile, they are protected to large extent by fellow Muslims who do so without consideration for the Infidels and their families who fall victim to terrorism.

Thanks, of course, to the above Muslims, you have to wonder where the collective heart of Islam lies… I mean, either they’re for or against, I do not believe there is room here for any middle ground, and the “peaceful” ones must prove themselves on the side of human decency by not only denouncing these terrorists, but by helping in any way to bring them down (cooperating with authorities, etc) rather than simply giving lip service to how bad terrorism is.

The concept of survival of (or the good of) the community is not new, and that concept should govern the actions of both our and other governments, and the Muslims who purport to oppose terrorism, as they should oppose fundamentalist Islam’s irritating “convert to our beliefs or die!” method of “sharing”.

Save the political correctness for liberals to discuss at their pot and Kool-Aid Bar-B-Cues… The rest of us want to live, watch our children succeed and bear us granchildren, each of us free to worship as we believe and walk the streets without fearing, however remotely, the possibility that an explosion or bursts of randomly aimed weapons fire might ring down the curtain prematurely…