When I first arrived in America, politicians here were still considered (mostly) moral role models. They were, after all, men and women elected as much for their perceived charactar as for their politics, because back then there was still a morality based outlook here in the United States. That is, sexual deviations of one kind and another were still considered just that… deviations.

Now, they are considerd to be “the norm”; The Boy Scouts of America are on the verge of allowing homosexual scout leaders (thank you, Democrats), same sex marriage is being legalized in various states (hat tip, Democrats), a recent president’s extramarital oral sexcapades were seen as “no problem” by his voting constituency (Democrats, go figure), a (Democrat) governor of New York, who had previously feathered his political cap by crusading against organized prostitution as state attorney general turned out to have his own preferred client status, complete with code number, among the same prostitute community and now we have apparently strong allegations that yet another Democrat has his finger in the forbidden fruit pie.

In a little-noticed email published online Wednesday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime Menendez campaign donor.

“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2002, according to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker.

No wonder all the immoral legislation comes from the left side of the aisle; That’s where all the smut happens. Today’sDemocratic Party is a veritable anything goes orgy, and they legislate accordingly, not only to protect and legally justify their own illicit interests, but to attract the votes of their kindred spirits, pedophiles, homosexuals, bestiality afficionados, who knows what all else…

TheDC is not disclosing the woman’s name because she may have been a minor when her alleged sexual encounters with Menendez occurred. Four different Spanish speakers who reviewed TheDC’s translation of her letter all said her Spanish writing indicated someone who was very young and unsophisticated.

CREW chose to publish her name, despite her concerns for her safety. (RELATED: Emails show FBI investigating Sen. Bob Menendez for sleeping with underage Dominican prostitutes)

“I do not want to have problems with those people,” she wrote, adding that she believed “I can trust you, that you will help us, and that nothing bad will happen to the other young girls, to me, or to my family.”

“The thing that worries me the most is that if they know that I spoke with someone they will find me,” she added.

The young woman wrote that she was recruited as an escort from an adult escort service called the Doll Palace, and that the code word “chocolate” would summon her and other girls to Melgen’s sex parties. She offered specific recollections of Melgen’s preferred pimp, the homes where she slept with his house guests for money, and the phone number her calls would come from.

Want to go to a steamy sex party? Just call your local Democrat politician….

What a shameful path we in America have embarked upon, when we (at least, those who vote consistently, without reservation, for politicians of one of our two main political parties) disregard the moral fiber of those we elect to represent us in our local, state and federal governments…

We have all heard/read reports about foreign hackers attacking the firewalls of our national infrastructure, some actually inflicting minor, short term problems that were thankfullycontrolled and eliminated by our eminent IT security pros.

This article was actually linked to from one of the security publications Seth receives, the link to C-net dot com.

‘Cyber 9/11′ may be on horizon, Homeland Security chief warns

With the possibility of a massive cyberattack hitting the U.S. in the near future, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urges the government to pass cybersecurity legislation.

The head of Homeland Security announced today that she believes a “cyber 9/11″ could happen “imminently,” according to Reuters. If such an event were to occur it could cripple the country — taking down the power grid, water infrastructure, transportation networks, and financial networks.

“We shouldn’t wait until there is a 9/11 in the cyber world,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during a talk at the Wilson Center think tank today, according to Reuters. “There are things we can and should be doing right now that, if not prevent, would mitigate the extent of damage.”

Napolitano was referring to the possibility of Congress passing cybersecurity legislation. Several elected officials have been working to get a cybersecurity law passed for years, but have repeatedly run into road blocks.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman spent years fighting unsuccessfully for a so-called Internet kill switch that would grant the president vast power over private networks during a “national cyberemergency.” Currently, he is working to get Senate to pass a more modest version of his proposal. By the same token, President Obama also signed an executive order last July that could give the government control over the Internet in an emergency.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has also strongly advocated for increased governmental cybersecurity. During his first major policy speech on cybersecurity last October, he echoed previous statements that the United States is facing the possibility of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor” perpetrated by foreign hackers.

“A cyber attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11,” he said during a speech. “Such a destructive cyber terrorist attack could paralyze the nation.”

According to Reuters, Napolitano said today that a massive cyber attack could cause the same amount of damage as last year’s Superstorm Sandy, which downed electricity and information networks throughout the Northeastern U.S.

“The clarion call is here and we need to be dealing with this very urgently,” Napolitano said. “Attacks are coming all the time. They are coming from different sources, they take different forms. But they are increasing in seriousness and sophistication.”

I call this a “slippery slope” because our politicians of late seem to take liberties (ours, unfortunately) when it comes to enacting regulations or legislation that is supposed to protect and defend us.

If legislation does make its way into the House and Senate regarding Internet security measures, we need to keep a really close watch on what, exactly, is being proposed and how much of it effects our own day to day web access and use. I don’t mean reading up on the New York Times’ account of proceedings, I mean following them from less partison information sources. I mean contacting our senators and representatives and making sure to obtain their real intentions on the cyber security issue, what they plan to propose, how they plan to vote, etc.

Our (supposedly “our“, though these last few years, they seem to have forgotten what Reagan said about “a country that has a government vs a government that has a country”) government has evidently developed a pension for using practically every piece of protective legislation to slip in numerous stealth measures that somehow manage to degrade our liberty by granting them more power than they either require for the task at hand or are eligible to possess under the Constitution.

So let’s follow Jefferson’s advice that it is the duty of every American to look over the shoulders of those we elect to represent us in government and keep tabs on what they are doing on our behalf, especially on the matter of cyber security vs cyber freedom…

This column is spot on.

…Meanwhile, hot from the fiscal-cliff fiasco, the media are already eagerly anticipating the next in the series of monthly capitulations by Republicans, this time on the debt ceiling. While I was abroad, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, a Harvard professor of constitutional law, a prominent congressman and various other American eminencies apparently had a sober and serious discussion on whether the United States Treasury could circumvent the debt constraints by minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin. Although Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider called the trillion-dollar coin “the most important fiscal policy debate you’ll ever see in your life,” most Democratic pundits appeared to favor the idea for the more straightforward joy it affords in sticking it to the House Republicans. No more tedious whining about spending from GOP congressmen. Next time Paul Ryan shows up in committee demanding to know about deficit reduction plans, all the Treasury Secretary has to do is pull out a handful of trillion-dollar coins from down the back of the sofa and tell him to keep the change.

The trillion-dollar groat fever ran a vague bell with me. Way back in 1893, Mark Twain wrote a short story called “The Million Pound Bank Note,” which in the 1950s Ronald Neame made into a rather droll film. A penniless American down and out in London (Gregory Peck) is presented by two eccentric Englishmen (Ronald Squire and Wilfrid Hyde-White) with a million-pound note, which they have persuaded the Bank of England to print in order to settle a wager. One of the English chaps believes that simple possession of the note will allow the destitute Yank to live the high life without ever having to spend a shilling. And so it proves. He goes to the pub for lunch, offers the note, and the innkeeper explains that he’s unable to make change for a million pounds, but is honored to feed him anyway. He then goes to be fitted for a suit, and again the tailor regrets that he can’t provide change for a million pounds but delightedly measures him for dress suits, silk shirts and all the rest. I always liked the line Mark Twain’s protagonist uses on a duke’s niece he’s sweet on: He tells her “I hadn’t a cent in the world but just the million pound note.”

That’s Paul Krugman’s solution for America as it prepares to bust through another laughably named “debt limit”: We’d be a nation that hasn’t a cent in the world but just a trillion-dollar coin – and what more do we need? As with Gregory Peck in the movie, the mere fact of the coin’s existence would ensure we could go on living large. Indeed, aside from inflating a million quid to a trillion bucks, Professor Krugman’s proposal economically prunes the sprawling cast of the film down to an off-Broadway one-man show with Uncle Sam playing every part: A penniless Yank (Uncle Sam) runs into a wealthy benefactor (Uncle Sam) who has persuaded the banking authorities (Uncle Sam) to mint a trillion-dollar coin that will allow Uncle Sam (played by Uncle Sam) to extend an unending line of credit to Uncle Sam (also played by Uncle Sam).

This seems likely to work. As for the love interest, in the final scene, Paul Krugman takes his fake dead girlfriend (played by Barack Obama’s composite girlfriend) to a swank restaurant and buys her the world’s most expensive bottle of champagne (played by Lance Armstrong’s urine sample).

The entire column is here.

Going through the Seth archives, I find and enjoy a lot of music from the 1970s (his favorite era for contemporary material) and have fun tracking some of it down on YouTube to watch the various groups performing it.

One of his three or four favorites was Focus, a Dutch group the Wolf and I also liked a lot that featured a great guitarist named Jan Ackerman.

Another was the aptly named Renaissance, which was fronted by the beautiful voice of Annie Haslam.

Still another, also among my favorites was, of course, the Moody Blues, and one song by that band with which I was (and am) particularly enamored, sung by Ray Thomas, was and is For My Lady.

At least, the dispute over the Obama/Biden attack on our Second Amendment rights is certainly hot and getting hotter by the minute. I won’t even bother going into the basically treasonous assault on the rights of gun owners in New York State by fascist Andrew Cuomo or the hot air blown strongly in New York City by contemptible weasel cum mayor Michael Bloomberg.

With Texas and Wyoming (so far!) working on legislation to illegalize federal interference with gun rights in their states, a sheriff in Oregon declaring that his county will not acknowledge any new federal anti-gun legislation and gun rights advocacies fighting the feds every step of the way, this issue is certainly going to continue getting hotter…

As Bonehead Biden epitomized the selective policies of liberalism (whatever suits their agendas of the moment),

During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

What kind of a crock is that, coming, no less, from the White House?

And from One News Now

Lawmakers and gun advocates are sounding off on President Obama’s 23 executive actions involving gun violence, as well as the dozen or so actions that he has called on Congress to approve.

Obama is taking 23 separate actions on his own, using his presidential powers, but says it is up to Congress to “make a real and lasting difference” by imposing new gun restrictions. His proposals, introduced Wednesday in the nation’s capital, include universal background checks and bans on military-style assault rifles. But he acknowledged he faces a tough fight to get those measures approved on Capitol Hill.

Indeed he might. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) appeared Wednesday afternoon on Tony Perkins’ Washington Watch on American Family Radio. The senator has issues with the approach being taken by the president.

“My concern still is whether or not he is going to usurp this authority and do it on his own,” said Paul. “We set up a country with checks and balances [because] we didn’t like the king to have all the balance of power — so we separated the power. In fact, one of the people we based this on was the writings of Montesquieu. He said it was very important to do this, or else you will have tyranny.”

Obama, said the Kentucky Republican, “has shown a tendency to go around Congress when he can’t get his way — and that worries me.”

And that is why Senator Paul plans to take some legislative action. “We’ll be introducing some legislation to try to rein in his authority to do things by executive order. That’ll be coming by the next week or so,” he stated. “We’ll also be looking very carefully at these executive orders to see if any of them go afoul of the Second Amendment.”

Appearing on the Fox News Channel this morning, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) called the president’s actions “misguided.”

“Here’s my point: the impetus for all of this is the shooting in Connecticut, right? That’s what led to this — and yet nothing he’s proposing would have prevented Connecticut,” said Rubio.

“… It appears to me[that] this is stuff they’ve always wanted to do, and now this [tragedy] has created the political climate to pursue it — and it’s not going to solve the problem,” . Washington, DC, had some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and when they passed them violence skyrocketed.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) agrees with Rubio, saying “very few of his recommendations have anything to do with happened” in Connecticut.

“Guns require a finger to pull the trigger,” Perry says in a press release. “The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.”

He adds: “… The piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

Egregious issues

A gun rights organization also is skeptical about President Obama’s 23 executive actions aimed at curbing gun rights. Sam Paredes is on the board of directors of Gun Owners of America.

“[The executive actions] would do nothing to impact crime, nothing to stop murders, nothing to stop the criminally insane from committing their atrocities,” he tells OneNewsNow. “So we are very skeptical and are prepared to challenge them any way we can, whether it’s in Congress or through the courts.”

Paredes and GOA feel several of the president’s proposals that were particularly egregious. “The so-called assault weapons ban and the high-capacity magazine ban; the mandatory background checks for all purchases — we think that those issues are the most egregious; a clear violation of the Second Amendment.”

Paredes says it is fortunate that Obama will not be able to put those severe restrictions in place without congressional approval.

We must now hope that the politicians quoted in the above article do something highly uncharacteristic of GOP politicians of late: Follow through, stick to their guns (pun intended) and show some real spine by beating back this blatant assault on the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution, instead of just offering up the usual bluster to pacify their constituents and then giving in to the forces of the left.

It should be quite clear by now that the Wolf household is a very Second Amendment household. Our two sons knew how to shoot (accurately) both a variety of rifles and several handguns very early on, and before either was allowed to handle his first firearm, he was well versed in firearm safety.

That said, I couldn’t resist posting this one:

If this isn’t the best rejoinder ever, it has to rank among the top two or three. Talk about a conversation stopper.

For those that don’t know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an ‘Australian treasure!’

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!

This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.

It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don’t see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma’am, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?

The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.

LOL!

Another H/T to Ric…

Try robbing this diner!

H/T Ric

From Vision To America:

A Republican state lawmaker in Wyoming has introduced legislation to prohibit enforcement of federal gun control measures that Vice President Joe Biden is likely to recommend next week.

State Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Evansville) has put forward a bill making it a felony to enforce in Wyoming any federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines, two proposals that Biden’s gun control task force is likely to present to President Barack Obama on Tuesday. The task force’s recommendations, of course, would have to be passed by Congress and signed by Obama in order to become law.

Kroeker said his bill, which would hit federal agents with up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine for attempting to enforce such bans in Wyoming, is designed to be proactive in preserving gun rights.

Emphasis mine.

What a splendid way to keep Herr Obama’s Anti-Second Amendment Gestapo out of ones’ state!

Executive orders were not meant to provide a president with designs on monarchy a way to realize his dreams via a vehicle by which he could ignore the House, the Senate and the Court and simply dictate his personal doctrine, via whim, to the American people.

Yet, here we have a president who is doing just that, cranking out an executive order whenever he is not satisfied with the dictates of the Constitution or the legalities of United States governance.

As we know, President Obama is purportedly preparing another one of his executive order specials to step on the Second Amendment without consideration of any possible interference from those pesky members of the other branches of government.

A Washington Times article by Andrew Napolitano pretty much defines the issue.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

SNIP!

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Above emphasis mine.

Read the entire piece, it’s as good a pro-Second Amendment article as I’ve seen in the course of this latest attempt by the left to deprive us of one of our most basic rights.