Lots of folks are praising Lindsey Graham for his stance about Benghazi.   However, it is prudent to remember he has been a face of manipulated optical opposition before.  I don’t trust Graham, and this could well be just another decepticon angle to keep the patriots away from the gates as they look back yelling “we got this”.   They don’t want you, me, or anyone, looking over the wall or beyond the gate.

WASHINGTON DC – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared on CBS News’ Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer on Sunday where he pledged to try to block the nominations of both Chuck Hagel and John Brennan in an effort to get more information about the 2012 attack on an American consulate in Benghazi out of President Barack Obama.

Graham told Schieffer that he thought it was unfortunate that Obama did not place a personal call to officials in the Libyan government on the evening of September 11, 2012, when an American consulate in Libya was overrun by militants. (more…)

(ht WeaselZippers)   The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.

The DHS, which secures the nation’s border, in 2009 announced that it would conduct a “Civil Liberties Impact Assessment” of its suspicionless search-and-seizure policy pertaining to electronic devices “within 120 days.” More than three years later, the DHS office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a two-page executive summary of its findings. (more…)

Corkins said he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The prosecutor said they reviewed the family computer and found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins later told FOX News that the far left Southern Poverty Law Center was responsible for creating the climate for the shooting.

WASHINGTON DC – A man accused of shooting a security guard inside the downtown Washington headquarters of a conservative Christian lobbying group pleaded guilty Wednesday in connection with the shooting.

Corkins pleaded guilty to one federal count of crossing state lines with guns and ammunition. He also pleaded guilty to one count of intent to kill while armed and one count of committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill.

Those last two counts are District charges.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on April 29. (more…)

There is no reason to go into a long explanation of how this just becomes further evidence of the *true ideology* of the far left.   It just is.   The least they could do is ask you to show some form of ID before they killed you.

White House:  “Legal, Ethical and Wise”…

WASHINGTON — Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it would be lawful to kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” of the government decided that the target was a ranking figure in Al Qaeda who posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture was not feasible, according to a 16-page document made public on Monday.

The unsigned and undated Justice Department “white paper,” obtained by NBC News, is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team’s views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies. (more…)

Ron Paul sent out a tweet today.

Interestingly enough I was just talking about this yesterday.   It is quite possible to be so far in one direction on the “Freedom Continuum” that you circle back around to the complete opposite side. (more…)

Seriously, I don’t want to frame what he is saying, nor provide any interpretation of it other than what he is actually advocating.    Just listen and think for yourself what exactly is Jesse Jackson calling for (It’s only two minutes):

For clarity.  In concession, I personally am not against state-run background checks using all available secure databases.   However, I am vehemently against a national database of actual gun owners. There is a big difference, and one I have yet to see anyone articulate in the public media forums.

Meaning, once you have cleared the “state” background check hurdle, and are able to purchase firearm(s), no-one should know what, how many, or what type you own. Check the background, approve the purchase, and that’s the end of it. No further record keeping.

…. And NO.  No-one should TRUST this administration about this.  NO-ONE.

(The Hill) When pressed by host Chris Wallace on the fact that the White House has said nothing about a universal registry, LaPierre responded, “And ‘ObamaCare’ wasn’t a tax until they needed it to be a tax. I don’t think you can trust these people.” (more…)

Remember when we were talking about the enevitable slippery slope of Obamacare in conjunction with the Nanny State mindset, and taken to its logical conclusion?

Big brother to log your drinking habits and waist size as GPs are forced to hand over confidential records – GPs are to be forced to hand over confidential records on all their patients’ drinking habits, waist sizes and illnesses.

The files will be stored in a giant information bank that privacy campaigners say represents the ‘biggest data grab in NHS history’. They warned the move would end patient confidentiality and hand personal information to third parties.

The data includes weight, cholesterol levels, body mass index, pulse rate, family health history, alcohol consumption and smoking status.  Diagnosis of everything from cancer to heart disease to mental illness would be covered. Family doctors will have to pass on dates of birth, postcodes and NHS numbers. (more…)

NOT

Mega fail…. but the progs who don’t pay attention to the constitution, or even have a semblance of understanding of the 10th amendment or division of relegated powers.  Duh.

Discussing gun control, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday told a Utah sheriff that if Barack Obama issues an executive order, that order is the law and the sheriff must obey.

However, jurisprudence on this topic reveals exactly the opposite.

As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state.

Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law.  (continue reading)

How do you get an ideological “Ally”  to make a political move they are uncomfortable with?

You use leverage, heavy leverage…..   It’s a Machiavellian Quid Pro Quo

But what leverage does President Obama have over current Turkish President, Erdogan?

What information would force Erdogan to make a move on Osama Bin Laden Jr?  A move that Erdogan does not want to make hot make because his Islamist colleagues will not be happy.    The answer is  HERE.

It’s Machiavellian because both President Obama and President Erdogan are aligned both philosophically and ideologically. (more…)