Welcome To The Wild Midwest

It’s been a while since I’ve written much about the plague of so-called “gun violence” raging through our beloved homeland like a nasty strain of drug-resistant gonorrhea through an Occupy squatters’ camp. I must admit, the daily deluge of disgrace flowing forth from the White House has distracted me from the Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights and simultaneously provided cover for those liberals who exploit tragedy to further their attempts to violate the inviolable.

If only President Barack Obama and his accomplices’ unprecedented mendacity and unparalleled corruption had the same effect on the anti-Bill of Rights vermin. Last week, while Obama’s minions were lying through their teeth about the extent of the National Security Agency violations of our privacy, Obama’s former campaign machine — now operating under the name “Organizing for Action” (OFA) — set the taste bar to an all-time low by celebrating the six-month anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., massacre. The ersatz evite it sent out included the line: “And in those six months, thousands more people have been killed by guns.”

Much like the hackneyed phrase “gun violence,” the suggestion that people have been “killed by guns” goes beyond the usual intellectual dishonesty that marks leftist dogma. Lest you think I’m being unfair, I checked the gun safe this morning. Everything was exactly as I left it the last time. If there are wild herds of guns wandering the streets and assaulting our fellow citizens, they must be extraordinarily stealthy. I wonder how the Democrats know which guns are at fault.

The OFA agitprop is part of a larger effort to reanimate the corpse of so-called “gun control.” Following their humiliating defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd is back for more. Much like the push to pass the bureaucratic monstrosity Obamacare over the objections of the majority of Americans, when it comes to expanding State control over the people, once is never enough for the Democrats.

Just what is it they’re planning to deliver? OFA and their ilk say so-called “gun control” will cure everything from drug-fueled gang wars to jaywalking. But Newtown already had the laws that the anti-Bill of Rights types want to impose on the rest of us. And Newtown is a libertarian paradise compared to Obama’s old stomping grounds of Chicago.

In a city that has labored under the bootheel of Democratic machine politics for more than a century, the 2nd Amendment is little more than a memory. In fact, the Supreme Court had to wade into the Windy City cesspool with the landmark 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision just to remind the municipal tyrants that the Constitution doesn’t disembark in Des Plaines, Ill. Despite that Supreme admonishment, Chicago remains one of the most “unfriendly to liberty” cities east of San Francisco. By OFA logic, that should translate to a peaceful burg that is the envy of all others. Crime should be a pale shadow of the monster that used to stalk the Magnificent Mile.

So how to explain the war zone that Chicago has become? As if the city’s murder rate wasn’t already steeper than the Himalayas, this past weekend brought new horror to the shores of Lake Michigan. By the latest count, seven Chicagoans met their ends via so-called “gun violence” over the weekend. Nearly three dozen were injured. If I were inclined to substitute anecdotal evidence for solid facts (looking at you, Al Gore), I might conclude so-called “gun control” causes so-called “gun violence.” At the exact moment OFA reloaded for another offensive on liberty, the poster city for so-called “gun control” turned into the O.K. Corral… again.

As usual, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd’s lack of taste, sense and grammar is exceeded only by their remarkably poor timing. While their attempt to exploit Newtown for their own nefarious purposes failed in part because Americans were repulsed by their macabre politicization of tragedy, it also failed because their ultimate goal involved subjecting Americans to the same laws that had just publicly failed to prevent Newtown. Essentially, the Democrats said, “That didn’t work; let’s try it everywhere!” I just read another story about the free-fire zone formerly known as Chicago. Let’s not.

–Ben Crystal

The 62 Percent

According to the latest Pew/Washington Post poll, a greater majority of Americans are comfortable with the National Security Agency (NSA) reading everything except your thoughts than were comfortable with the idea of a President named Barack Obama. In fact, if the numbers are even close to correct (never a sure bet), 62 percent of Americans harbor no ill will toward government’s inexorable transformation into the sort of outfit one can normally find only in a George Orwell novel or the Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Division).

Nearly two out of three Americans believe gathering intelligence on potential terrorism is more important than their Constitutionally affirmed freedom. As a Nation, we are more unified about turning over our freedoms than we are about virtually anything else of significance. To give you some political perspective: A President hasn’t strutted into the Oval Office swinging that kind of electoral lumber since President James Monroe circled the bases unopposed in 1820. (Presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson got close.) I’m not convinced we could come to such an agreement over anything that doesn’t involve free beer and not watching MSNBC.

To be fair, Democrats are less bothered by the NSA’s intrusions than Republicans, but only by a few points. Both sides register well above 50 percent in the “yea” column. That’s sad, but unsurprising — especially given the fact that the two sides have selected Obama, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain as their intended leaders of the free world.

But what do we actually receive in return for our gift of liberty? The poll results suggest we’re willing to trade liberty for security. Clearly, liberty is in shorter supply than straight answers at a White House press briefing. So where’s that shiny new security we’re supposed to be enjoying? The attacks on Benghazi, Boston and Fort Hood all occurred during the conduct of Operation Boundless Informant. In fact, given the scope of the program, not only should those horrors been averted, but a sizable chunk of crime nationwide should have been averted as well. I’d like to think that some cubicle rat at Fort Meade could take a break from reading my mother’s group emails to her bridge club to alert the local flatfoots that someone’s on his smartphone planning to knock over the First National.

They armed Mexican narcoterrorists, and they promptly lost track of the guns. They federalized our healthcare, but they lied about virtually every aspect of their plan. They left four Americans to die in the desert while they partied in Las Vegas, and then they blamed the whole thing on an old YouTube video. They turned the Internal Revenue Service into the KGB and told us we deserved it, what with all that praying we’ve been doing. The same guys who used to take over the principal’s office to protest something involving whales or Jane Fonda are now running the show in Washington, D.C. When they were kids, they were smug and ignorant. As adults, they’re smug, ignorant and elected.

Yet 62 percent of us are perfectly willing to hand over the Bill of Rights as a marker against future attacks like the ones the NSA domestic spying program has already failed to prevent. Sixty-two percent of us are willing to endure having our emails read by the same government that makes the Department of Motor Vehicles such a party. Sixty-two percent of us trust everything from our Web-browsing habits to our phone records with the same people who brought us a State Department that spends more time on duplicity than it does on diplomacy.

Sixty-two percent of us are willing to ignore patron of liberty Ben Franklin’s admonishment: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” As for the other 38 percent of us… well, we must be hiding something, right?

–Ben Crystal

The Terrorists Won

Actually, the terrorists — whoever they might be — didn’t really win. Terrorists never win, because terrorists can’t win. Terrorism might be able to inflict serious damage; but, ultimately, terrorism fails because terrorism is idiotic. The goal of super-patriarchal theocracy is unachievable beyond the benighted outlands like Afghanistan, Mali or Dearborn, Mich., where women have no sense of real freedom. Moreover, terrorism’s career arc is shorter than a teenager’s attention span. Most of the all-stars die at the height of their talents; the rest end up living in either caves or, worse, Pakistan.

Sure, the Democrats might try to dress it up in a beret and an AK-47 and call it “A People’s Revolution against the colonial blah-blah-blah.” But in the end, it’s Che Guevara in a casket, Osama bin Laden with a gaping head wound, Tim McVeigh with a needle in his arm or Bill Ayers teaching education to future ThinkProgress bloggers.

And terrorism does make the occasional incursion. The sort of anybody-but-America ideology does have its appeal to the permanent soft-underbelly-of-society types. Witness San Francisco, Chicago, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and whatever is left of Detroit. But beyond the urban rats’ nests that provide the Democrats with their triple soy lattes, imposing the sort of government terrorists dream of would be so costive as to make Pyrrhus wince. In short, terrorism can’t defeat us.

However, we can certainly do the job for the terrorists. In fact, the process is pretty simple. When terrorists attack, we turn to our government and beg for shelter like a battered wife begging forgiveness for overcooking the pot roast. We look past the rape of our liberty to the happy home of safety. And we trust a government that has repeatedly proven it’s almost as responsible as a teenage girl with an unsecured credit card.

The abominable Patriot Act, a bastard child of authoritarian greed and post-9/11 hysteria, is now the sole real tool by which they shall sow our freedoms… or reap them. And lest you make the mistake of thinking President Barack Obama is the lone villain in this tableau of tyranny, remember President George W. Bush midwifed the Patriot Act into the cold of light of day — with the full participation of a bipartisan majority. At the time, civil libertarians from sea to shining sea warned against it, noting that the act had essentially just added an unspoken “unless the President thinks you’re uncool.”

When President Richard M. Nixon wiped his feet on the Constitution, the Nation united to knock him out of his shoes. When Bush did the same, the Nation invited him in for coffee and doughnuts. The only difference between the two was that Bush used the magic words: “national security.” Neither Nixon nor Bush could imagine what Obama had in store.

And there’s no way in Allah’s endless sands that any terrorist could have foreseen it. Not only did we allow members of the political class to crush our windpipes with the jackboots of tyranny, but we begged them to do it. After the Patriot Act — which then-Senator Obama vociferously opposed — and its rape of the Bill of Rights opened the door, President Obama barreled through with Attorney General Eric Holder, the Internal Revenue Service and the National Security Agency and immediately set about proving correct his earlier self.

But look on the bright side: At least we freed ourselves from the terrorism — except for Boston, and Fort Hood and April 15.

–Ben Crystal

America Was Asking For It

If you were among those who watched Tuesday morning’s House Ways and Means Committee hearings on the Internal Revenue Service scandal, a tip o’ the cap, doff of the lid and tap of the brim to you. Out of what I am certain was mere coincidence, President Barack Obama chose that same time frame to wander into the Rose Garden and whine about some Federal judicial appointees having a tough time of it; or something to that effect. For all the real import of Obama’s remarks, he might as well have been reading one of the multiple autobiographies he’s managed to write about the life he won’t admit to living.

His al fresco foot-stomp magically drew the attention of not only the usual lapdog media clowns, but even C-SPAN. Meanwhile, I watched the Committee’s live feed (they have one). I’m told Fox News managed to cover the hearing, as well.

If you did join me in viewing the Ways and Means Committee in all its gladiatorial glory, then you were treated to what may well have been the defining moment for the Democratic Party’s willful ignorance of the law, the Constitution and basic decency in deploying the IRS as a weapon against conservatives. You also enjoyed a great moment in conservatism’s stand against such tyrannical excess.

Former Saddam Hussein human shield and current Congressman from Washington’s weirdest district Jim McDermott took it upon himself to defend the IRS’s partisan battery thusly:

(E)ach of your groups are highly political… We’re talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We’re talking about a tax break. If you didn’t come in and ask for this tax break, you would have never have had a question asked of you.

That’s right, kiddies. According to the Democrats, when it comes to politically-motivated harassment of law-abiding citizens over their refusal to bow before Obama, conservatives brought it on themselves. What’s more, if they had simply avoided applying for tax-exempt status, they could have avoided the whole mess.

Keep in mind, McDermott may be a loon; but he’s hardly alone in his lunacy. Leading Democrats including Bill Maher and The New York Times have tried on the same crazy pants. Of course, the conservative groups who faced the brunt of the IRS jackboot campaign deserved it. If you go out in Washington, D.C. dressed in one of those sexy blue suit–and-red tie outfits, you’re practically begging for an audit.

Fortunately for us, McDermott had company in the room. Representative Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) smacked the falafel out of McDermott’s face when he noted: “‘Organizing for Action is a non-profit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of his agenda.’”

Schock was not offering an opinion on “Organizing for Action’s” mission statement; he was reading it verbatim from the OfA website. If McDermott is so concerned about “highly political” groups; where is his demand for an IRS audit of these guys? By repeating a liberal hate group’s own words, Schock not only crushed McDermott’s party-line pabulum; he ground it up and buried it in the backyard.

The artists formerly known as “Obama for America” are now calling themselves “Organizing for America.” The same people, with the same mission and even the same leadership in the person of Jim Messina — who always looks like he spends too much time driving windowless vans past schoolyards. Moreover, they still tweet under the Twitter-verified handle “@BarackObama;” and the real Barack Obama even pops in from time to time to help them grub for cash.

OFA is joined in tax-exempt status by a host of hate groups. There’s Common Cause, whose members infamously called for the actual lynching of a Supreme Court justice and his wife; ThinkProgress, which claims to be “non-partisan,” and yet crows about being a “liberal blog” in the next sentence; Media Matters for America, a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media;” and even Planned Parenthood, which does — well — a certain Mr. Gosnell could tell you in fairly excruciating detail.

All the aforementioned are overtly and even unapologetically political in nature. All enjoy tax-exempt status. Not one endured any kind of harassment, auditing or even so much as an unenthusiastic birthday card from the IRS. If you asked “Baghdad” Jim McDermott about that, he’d probably say “they weren’t asking for it.”

-Ben Crystal

Doing It Wrong

Late last week, as the controversies created by President Barack Obama and his Administration came dangerously close to spinning out of control, the Nation’s top cop — Attorney General Eric Holder — stepped before select members of the Fourth Estate in an effort to turn America’s frown upside down. Of course, I can’t tell you what Holder told those resolute guardians of the public commonweal because the primary protector of American justice required the reporters keep their confab “off the record.”

It’s a bit difficult to respond to such a bizarrely ham-fisted attempt to deflect deserved scrutiny, but I can certainly say this to Holder and the rest of Obama’s cirque du scandale: when it comes to being the most transparent administration in history, you’re doing it wrong.

Holder has yet to clear up his wildly inconsistent testimony regarding the ill-advised and ultimately disastrous Operation Fast and Furious. Facing the flames he fanned by wiretapping journalists and then lying about it, Holder decided against an honest and open accounting of his actions. I suppose we should sigh with relief that he wasn’t (I’m guessing) involved in Obama’s deployment of the Internal Revenue Service as a political cudgel.

Just to be clear: the Obama Administration has never submitted satisfactory, or even non-self-conflicting, answers about Benghazi. They have never admitted to the staggering cost hikes contained in Obamacare. They have never offered an even marginally credible accounting of the IRS scandal. They have yet to explain how wiretapping journalists was a worthwhile endeavor. And when they finally decide to clear up the record on one of their many scandals, they decide to do it off the record.

When the man in the big chair of the Department of Justice – whose only job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (so help him God) – refuses to publicly account for his and his boss’s violations of that defining document; he’s doing it wrong. When we allow him to get away with it, then we’re doing it wrong.

-Ben Crystal

The Holder Follies

Where’s “Agent 99″ when you need her? How does Eric Holder spell relief? And — can’t talk right now, the Attorney General might be listening. All this — plus — no “Choom” in the courtroom. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtXMoVOg2lc&w=560&h=315]

There’s Only One ‘Fair’ Tax Plan

To hear the liberals tell it, government exists to make life fair. We need “fairness in broadcasting.” The “rich need to pay their fair share.” Under the “Our Party” tab on its website, the Democratic Party crows:

(W)e’re greater together than we are on our own–that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.

Granted, the Democrats’ idea of “fair” diverges from the definition suggested by Messrs. Merriam and Webster. After all, it isn’t fair that their support groups get all the really friendly Internal Revenue Service examiners. It isn’t fair that the corporate media lists so far to port that it’s in danger of capsizing. It isn’t “fair” that they’ve done to higher education what termites do to untreated lumber. And it isn’t “fair” that they get to hog all the best tee times at all the best golf courses.

Now, we may never devise a method to play through the Obama foursome on the back nine at Isleworth, but we can devise a method to assure that no American is ever again asked by some Federal goon about the content of his prayers. Fortunately for us, someone already has.

In the late 1990s, a group of green-eye-shade types put their heads together to come up with a way not only to protect their fellow citizens from Uncle Sam’s shock troops, but to render the shock troops themselves obsolete. The fruit of their considerable economic IQs is the FairTax.

The FairTax would end the punitive tax system the Democrats currently employ as a political weapon and bury the corruption engendered by allowing political hatchet men access to law-abiding citizens’ private lives. By replacing the graduated income tax programs currently in place with a one-time sales tax of 23 percent on new item purchases, it straightens out our byzantine system by walling it off. And with exemptions (in the form of “prebates” keyed to necessities and needs) built in, the FairTax even allows for those who have yet to achieve the American dream to keep more of the tools they need.

Picture it: a Nation flourishing under a 23 percent consumption tax. The American economic engine would be driven by the total participation of every single American. And the FairTax is the economic definition of egalitarianism. When some overpaid liberal Hollywood twerp buys a brand-new Range Rover in which his chauffeur will ferry him to Democratic fundraisers, he’ll pay a 23 percent tax on a really nice car. And when some overworked small-business owner buys a new minivan to ferry his kids to school, he’ll pay a 23 percent tax on a soccer-mommy mobile.

Of course, the FairTax “prebate” system does produce a sizable amount of data and/or paperwork related to Federal disbursements to families. But that volume is merely a babbling brook compared to the oceanic roar of the current system’s endless warren of bureaucracy. Besides, I’d rather the IRS be reduced to digitally rubber-stamping outgoing checks than hassling people about the content of their bedtime prayers.

And a system that provides entitlements based on the number of household dependents does open itself up to potential fraud. But such cases would be mitigated by the set limitations on entitlements, rendering abuses simple shoplifting compared to the grand larceny that goes on now.

With the FairTax, scandals like the one assaulting our senses in Washington right now will be just a sad memory. Democratic politicians bent on destroying the fabric of society by deploying IRS storm troopers to comb through the lives of their perceived enemies will be thwarted by the complete lack of IRS storm troopers. Never again will a brazenly corrupt President be able to deploy a tax tomahawk at a guitar manufacturer. Never again will a cruelly fascist political party be able to fire a fiscal cruise missile at a citizen’s group just because the group has the word “Constitution” in its name. No longer will we have to gaze collectively at the television screen while the people in charge of collecting our hard-earned pay treat the truth the way Roman Polanski treats underage starlets. We will be the ones in charge of disbursing our funds to the government, and each such disbursement will include a benefit to us in the form of whatever we just bought.

With the FairTax, we get rid of loopholes, offshore money-laundering and Constitutional abuses. Everyone pays his “fair share.”

–Ben Crystal

Simple, Not Easy

I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before. I call it “the politics of ease.” It’s the liberal tendency to blame every hitch in society’s collective gallop on someone or something other than the actual offender. Guns cause crime. Freedom causes terrorism. Wealthy people cause poverty. Your SUV causes bad weather. Junk food causes Michael Moore’s waistline. And criticizing those who hold the aforementioned nonsense to be true is racist.

With the accumulated wisdom of the human tribe available to anyone with even a spark of curiosity, it’s hard to imagine that anyone beyond the creepiest of the tinfoil-behatted basement dwellers actually still believes the above nonsense. Yet such addled creatures walk among us in numbers large enough to populate an entire “Occupy” riot with enough left over to fill to the local sex offender registries with the sort of people you wouldn’t allow within miles of your children.

Following the Newtown, Conn., massacre, liberals — goaded by their Democrat shepherds — decried gun ownership, the AR-15 rifle and even the National Rifle Association for their purportedly central role in the horror and demanded draconian prophylactic infringements on the Bill of Rights. Oddly, the millions of legal gun owners nationwide were uninvolved in Newtown, the AR-15 in my gun safe had nothing to do with it, and there were no Wayne LaPierre sightings in the Newtown area that terrible day, but no matter. Passing useless laws (like the ones Connecticut already had), restricting law-abiding Americans’ rights and blaming unrelated third parties is counterproductive or worse; but it is dramatically easier.  After all, blaming guns for the violence that has turned cities like Chicago and Detroit into gladiator arenas is unlikely to cost the Democratic Party machines the support of the gladiators. That’s dishonest, and dishonesty is easy.

As the civilized world reeled in horror at the savage brutality of the islamofascist murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, our leftward-leaning friends raced out to reassure us that Muslims present no danger.  Even as the Woolwich murder shook our collective sense of security, the blessed socialist paradise of Sweden was rocked by anti-integration riots perpetrated not by xenophobic red-State types (they don’t have those in Sweden) nor even racist Republicans, but Muslim immigrants. President Barack Obama, who bizarrely declared to the United Nations in the wake of the Benghazi, Libya, massacre that “the future does not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam,” delivered a speech late last week that condemned terror without acknowledging the religious identity proudly crowed by both the Woolwich butchers and the Stockholm savages. Not only did Obama take pains to avoid insulting “the prophet of Islam” (presuming the prophet of Islam gives a whit about Obama’s mewling), but he went in the opposite direction. “But this war, like all wars, must end… the core of al-Qaida… is on a path to defeat.” I’m guessing the war to which he referred is the war on global terrorism, which will end only after the last terrorist’s passage is booked to the afterlife. And if al-Qaida’s core is on the path to defeat, that path must be as long as the Quran, and it must detour from Benghazi to Boston and all points in between. Following the Boston Marathon attacks, the Democratic Party’s hate machine offered naked wishes that the perpetrators would be “white Americans.”

I’m not suggesting Islam and terrorism share a direct causal relationship. I am noting liberals tend to worry more about hurting the delicate feelings of Tawhal, Dariq and Hassan than they do about reporting the identity and motivation of those who seek to murder Tom, Dick and Harry. We live in a nation that not only tolerates the blatant religious hatred proclaimed by islamofascists like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Nation of Islam, but offers those hatemongers Constitutional protections. Moreover, the President of the United States is almost as worried about slighting Muhammad’s minions as he is about straightening out his putting stroke. That’s ignorance, and ignorance is easy.

The list of similar hypocrisies goes on. Liberals show an odd preoccupation with despising rich people — at least, rich people who don’t host fundraisers for Obama. To the left, wealth is a zero-sum concept. If, say, George Soros has billions of dollars, then someone in Compton, Calif., must be living in squalor. Soros does have billions of dollars, and there’s no shortage of Comptonian squalor. But the latter has nothing to do with the former. And villainizing the former isn’t going to move the latter to Bel Air.  here’s nothing wrong with envying those who are better off, as long as that envy inspires you to improve your surroundings and not degrade theirs. That’s greed, and greed is easy.

I recently ran across an ABC News report about a 9-year-old girl named Hannah Robertson. Hannah interrupted the annual McDonald’s shareholders’ meeting to “confront” CEO Don Thompson and accuse him of everything except driving past playgrounds and offering Happy Meals to little kids. The story did everything but favorably compare little Hannah to Joan of Arc. Yet the report omits a central fact: McDonald’s didn’t invade Hannah’s home; Hannah invaded McDonald’s. Moreover, McDonald’s doesn’t force-feed anyone. There’s no doubt that obesity is a health issue in today’s America. Our diets are, to put a fine point on it, as crappy as our fitness regimes. But we’re the couch potatoes who eat Big Macs while watching the Oprah Winfrey Network. Blaming our flabby midsections on the Chicken McNuggets and large fries we ate for lunch misses the fact that we ate the McNuggets; the McNuggets didn’t eat us. That’s denial, and denial is easy.

When an oversized semi hit a bridge in Washington, the bridge didn’t collapse because the GOP hates infrastructure spending. When Congressman Darrell Issa interrogated Attorney General Eric Holder, he wasn’t acting out of bigotry; he was expressing outrage over Holder’s arrogant mendacity. When the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted citizens over politics, the victims didn’t bring the harassment on themselves. Those may be easier explanations for the low-information set to swallow, but they’re not true.

It’s human nature to seek the simplest answers. Indeed, Occam’s razor, a scientifically fundamental axiom, holds that the simplest explanations are likely the correct ones. So perhaps we should forgive our liberal friends for their folly. But the explanations that they consider simple are nothing of the sort. In order to keep their herds in check, the left has conducted logical contortions worthy of Cirque Du Soleil. The idea that the guns in my gun safe are secretly biding their time for the right moment to shoot up a liquor store is sillier than blaming bad weather on a theory that has required multiple name changes in fewer than 40 years; yet both those inanities are taken as gospel by liberals from Haight-Ashbury to the Hamptons.

The solutions to most of the problems we face as a Nation are, in fact, quite simple. Blame criminals for crime. Blame terrorists for terrorism. Blame the culture of envy for the rise of poverty. Blame the responsible parties for the problems they create. That might not be easy, but it is simple.

–Ben Crystal

The Last Man Standing

Last week, as I slogged my way through the reams of scandal-related material flowing out of President Barack Obama’s funhouse like a tsunami of sewage, a sudden realization interrupted my research. With the scandals Obama and his henchmen have created polluting the national discourse, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a special prosecutor will be appointed soon. In fact, with even members of the Democratic Party demanding Obama appoint someone untainted by the stench of White House shame, a special prosecutor may well be unpacking his gear in some K-Street office even as we speak. Hooray for us; within 12 years, we managed to not only elect but re-elect Presidents who were so decency-averse that scandal defined them to the point of potential impeachment.

Whether the linchpin turns out to be the lies about Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service or wiretapping the media (or some combination of the three), it would seem likely that the least transparent President since the days of Warren Harding and the Teapot Dome is headed for the kind of limelight that doesn’t include photo-ops with Jay-Z and Steven Spielberg. There’s a better chance of Administration officials seeing the inside of a prison cell than the inside of George Soros’ private jet.

I would hardly complain. The disgraces with which Obama and his minions have saddled the Nation will take years to undo. In some cases, the damage may well be permanent. And I’d rather see the President and some of his more sinister sidekicks do time than see them continue to wage their full-frontal assault on the Bill of Rights. If we learned anything from the tribulations of the Richard Nixon Administration, we learned that the Constitution — and by extension, America — can withstand the slings and arrows of executive arrogance.

However, a caveat lurks behind the curtain of comeuppance. Let’s presume that someone in Obama’s gang will follow I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby — who certainly didn’t kill anyone — into the clutches of the Federal penal system. What if that newest resident at the least recommended bed and breakfast in either Petersburg, Va., or Danbury, Conn., turns out to be Attorney General Eric “Guns” Holder? What if Holder doesn’t take his perp walk solo? What if former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman joins him? What if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets Martha Stewart’s old cot at the Alderson, W.V., prison camp for wayward women?

The answer to all of the above: not much. Perhaps fewer bodies will pile up in Mexico and Benghazi, Libya. It’s likely that educating people about their Constitutional rights will lose its place on the list of “things that will earn a proctological exam from the taxman” list. But no one of any consequence would miss any of Obama’s backup dancers.

But here’s the thought that ought to keep you awake tonight: What if Obama himself ends up facing the pokey? Although even Nixon escaped with an “unindicted co-conspirator” nametag, he didn’t actually join his minions in prison. Nixon’s lies and cover-ups didn’t involve letting the phone ring off the hook while a U.S. ambassador and his colleagues died alone in the desert, and he never sent IRS goon squads after any liberal organization. (Unlike the Tea Party and similar groups, liberal groups during Nixon’s time built and used bombs against Americans; just ask Bill Ayers.) Nonetheless, if Obama’s lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is terminated by the landlords (that would be we, the people) and his accomplices in his Administration also get the bum’s rush, then the Presidency would be assumed by the next person in the Presidential order of succession who remains unsullied by Obama’s misdeeds. Not only would that person have to be clear of any wrongdoing, but he would have to have been unaware of said crimes.

That person is Vice President Joe Biden. Go ahead and take a belt straight from the whiskey bottle. You read that right. To the best of my knowledge, Ol’ Pluggsy really didn’t know. Granted, that ignorance was likely a result of his inability to keep his mouth shut, in combination with the fact that Biden makes former Vice President Dan “Potatoe” Quayle look like Marcus Tullius Cicero. But the Constitution doesn’t specify the President must be intellectually capable of handling the duties of the Oval Office, only that he be eligible.

Biden may well be the last man standing. Of all the frights flung at us by Obama and his circus, that’s the scariest of all.

–Ben Crystal

Imagining Obama

Imagine a world in which President Barack Obama is actually competent and his cronies are honest and dedicated public servants, as opposed to wire-pulling cretins who think the public exists to serve them. Of course, I’m not a Democrat; and I’m not trying to cover a monstrous scandal with a fig leaf’s worth of excuses. I am noting that what some people call an “Administration” more closely resembles a crime syndicate. And since the myriad scandals that now define Obama’s tenure supposedly unfolded undetected by any senior Administration officials, it’s difficult to imagine how any administrating occurred. Quite the contrary: With all the messes they’ve created, it’s difficult to imagine how they’ll ever clean up, much less explain how they screwed up that badly to begin with.

I won’t belabor you with a recounting of the missteps, misdemeanors and murders that Obama and his henchmen have thrown at America the way Al Sharpton throws feces at teenage girls. You dear denizens of Personal Liberty Digest can doubtless recite the litany of Obama’s abuses without prompting from me. Also, we’d need more bandwidth than the Defense Department to read the whole menu of mendacity.

What isn’t in doubt is that the scandals — Operation Fast and Furious; Obamacare; Benghazi, Libya; separate wars on the 1st and 2nd Amendments; and the transforming of the Internal Revenue Service into Obama’s goon squad — all obviously happened and reached much farther into the bowels of the Presidency than the Democrats originally claimed. What is in doubt is who knew what and when. And if press secretary Jay Carney’s daily disinformation sessions are any kind of barometer, gaining an accurate assessment of Obama’s assaults on freedom is going to be tougher than listening to a Democratic Senator blaming the Oklahoma tornado on Al Gore’s imagination.

Monday afternoon, Carney tried in vain to swim to relative safety, jokingly asking: “Are you going to ask me about Myanmar?” The press corps, perhaps tired of carrying Obama’s water in return for secret wiretaps and paper-thin allegations against their colleagues, would have nothing to do with it. Instead, they hurled questions about the extent of the IRS cover-up. They harangued him about the government’s surreptitious surveillance of the AP, FOX reporter James Rosen and others. Clearly, there was neither honor nor mercy between these liberals. At one point, Carney responded to a question about Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ likely illegal fundraising by spitting back: “You know, we could go down the list of questions — we could say, what about the president’s birth certificate? Was that legitimate?”

Actually, the mere fact that Carney doesn’t think so makes me think it’s worth examination.

Lies upon lies upon lies upon lies. And not only do the lies grow larger and more complicated with every passing moment, but the complete lack of regard for the Nation’s collective patience grows at an even more exponential rate. It’s hard enough for me to swallow the bitter pill of Obama’s re-election. I can’t imagine how anyone can swallow the idea of an Obama Administration that operates with all the transparency of a New Jersey waste management firm.

I need you to suspend disbelief for a moment. I don’t mean: “Pretend Santa Claus is real so you can enjoy one more Christmas before your kids turn into snotty teenagers.” I mean: “Pretend President Barack Obama looks cool in his ‘mom jeans.’” Just think of yourself as someone with a sense of humor and an IQ higher than Vice President Joe Biden’s hair plugs. Now ask yourself a question: In the real world, could you possibly accept such brazen profligacy; moreover, would you?

–Ben Crystal

Jumping The Shark

In the television business, they call it “jumping the shark.” The phrase was inspired by a rather infamous episode of “Happy Days” during which Fonzie — inexplicably still wearing his signature leather jacket — accepts a dare to don water skis and jump over a tiger shark. Although “Happy Days” managed seven more seasons after Fonzie’s stunt, the shark-jumping moment signified the end of the long-running sitcom staple’s considerable cultural influence and the beginning of its creative descent. In the years that followed, “jumping the shark” entered the lexicon as a phrase that identifies the subject — whether a television program or a politician — as having passed the point of value on the path to self-parody.

Even those few men who have inhabited the highest office in the land have leaped over the proverbial predator. President Richard Nixon did so the day he claimed: “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” President Jimmy Carter jumped his shark the day he fought and lost the Battle of the Chattahoochee Bunny. President Bill Clinton met his in the form of a chubby intern in a blue dress. President George W. Bush stood in front of his and declared “Mission Accomplished.” And President Barack Hussein Obama sent his on a press tour this past weekend.

With multiple scandals dominating the headlines (each borne of either gross incompetence or the sort of insidious corruption that hasn’t been seen in the White House since President Warren Harding jumped his own shark near the Teapot Dome), Obama gambled like a sitcom character on water skis. While he sent a junior varsity mouthpiece named Dan Pfeiffer to make an absolute fool of himself on the Sunday talk show rounds, his Administration leaked the almost dumbfounding news: Disgraced U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is not only not headed for a teaching position at one of those sad places where old liberals are put out to pasture, but she’s a sure bet to become the next National Security Adviser.

Pfeiffer’s performance puts the Obama Administration’s usual sideshow antics to shame. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Pfeiffer said Obama’s whereabouts during the Benghazi, Libya, massacre were an “irrelevant fact.” In an appearance of ABC News’ “This Week,” Pfeiffer jumped over Jaws on the topic of the Internal Revenue Service attacks on Obama’s perceived enemies, claiming, “The law is irrelevant.” There were more stunts on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” where Pfeiffer said the identity of those who altered Benghazi talking points was (of course) “largely irrelevant.” And then, the showstopper: Pfeiffer said, “And, frankly, I think that many of the Republicans… owe Ambassador Rice an apology for the things they said about her.”  And he didn’t even don the leather for that one.

Even while their attempts to bury Benghazi under a mountain of mendacity fail like Congressman Hank Johnson taking an oceanography exam, Obama and his coterie of thugs continue to amaze. The woman who falsely blamed the deaths of four Americans on some crappy YouTube video is slated to take up the mantle of the senior adviser to the President on matters of people who kill Americans. Rice’s shocking disregard for basic honesty cost her the big office at the Department of State. So instead of shuffling her off to the wacky world of the speakers’ circuit, Obama has decided to put her in charge of telling him which amateur auteurs to imprison.

Obama and his accomplices have told tall tales about so many of their various assaults on life, liberty and even common sense that they’re struggling to keep their stories straight. From Newtown, Conn., to Benghazi, from an IRS outpost in Cincinnati to the White House itself, and from Obamacare (the implementation of which will be overseen by Sarah Hall Ingram, the same pencil-pusher responsible for turning the IRS into Obama’s personal political goon squad) to the transcripts of illegal wiretaps, the web of lies that will define Obama’s disastrous tenure has grown more tangled than Hillary Clinton’s Congressional testimony.

At this point, Obama and his henchmen have given up even a pretense of honesty. I suppose they think the low-information types upon whom their authority rests will give them the same get-out-of-disgrace-free card they’ve abused since 2009. Someone ought to remind them: Fonzie may have successfully jumped the shark, but he still got canceled.

–Ben Crystal

The Joke’s On Us

I’m often asked by conservative friends how I continue to laugh at the increasingly Orwellian sideshow presented by President Barack Obama and his accomplices. Most of them expect the old “laugh or you’ll cry” saw, which isn’t entirely inappropriate. But seriously, folks, they sold guns to Mexican narcoterrorists and then blamed Mexican “gun” violence on American firearms. They pushed through a healthcare takeover they called “Affordable” and waited until later before acknowledging it would hike costs into the stratosphere. They abandoned four Americans to die in the Libyan desert and told so many lies in the wake of the massacre that they’ve actually begun to contradict themselves. They promised to be the “most transparent” Administration in history, and yet they make J. Edgar Hoover look like one of the Kardashians. And just when it couldn’t get any weirder, they got caught wiretapping their own flacks.

Of course, Obama says he didn’t know anything about any gunrunning, cost increases, terrorist attacks or wiretaps. I’m willing to grant the possibility that Obama actually had no idea of the freak show his Administration staged. As I’ve pointed out before: Obama reminds me of a real-life version of Chauncey Gardiner from the film “Being There,” so it’s possible he really is unaware of the depravities that have turned his Administration into what he calls a “sideshow.” Should that be the case, the reasons for his immediate dismissal are self-evident. If the President of the United States has divorced himself from responsibility to the extent that Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, surreptitious wiretapping and even politically motivated Internal Revenue Service harassment all happened without his knowledge, then he is clearly incompetent.

Meanwhile, as their delicate web of lies unravels under its own weight, the Democrats have dipped into the archives for their latest talking point. According to wild-eyed lunatic Chris Matthews of MSNBC (aka The Democrat Channel), Obama’s effronteries are merely “catnip for the hard right.” Of course, that’s a cover of that liberal chart-topper from the 1990s: “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” by Bubba Clinton and his band, the No Controlling Legal Authorities. The fact that Clinton wouldn’t recognize the truth if it strutted by him in a blue dress and stripper heels didn’t create scandals; it was just that the VRWC wouldn’t let them go.

But blaming conservatives for raising the alarm over Obama’s iniquities is the moral equivalent of blaming the murder witness for dialing 9-1-1. The only way the Democrats could more deeply offend me would require blaming the victims of their transgressions, not that even the most fringe of liberal fringe wackos would… er, too late.

In reference to the wiretapping of The Associated Press, CNN’s liberal mouthpiece Hilary Rosen tweeted on Tuesday:

Rosen, who once told Matthews “it‘s the reporters paying the price, not someone in the White House.  And that‘s not fair,” has split herself like a wishbone in an attempt to defend Obama from responsibility. As a Democrat first and a media flack second, Rosen’s allegiances shift automatically from the press to the depressing.

She’s hardly alone. The blogosphere is alive with messages of support for Obama and his accomplices.

Actress Bette Midler tweeted:

I wonder if she’d feel the same way if they leaked her financials to some hate group.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond told MSNBC talking hairdo Thomas Roberts: “I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the Tea Party. Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political.” Bond’s rather obvious projection aside, if the IRS decided to examine the nonprofit status of groups who advocate for cop killers, methinks he might protest a bit less.

Obama and his minions have cast aside any pretense of propriety, any display of decency and even the smallest semblance of seemliness. They believe their electoral mandate — such as it is — eclipses the very Constitution. They’re staging George Orwell’s Animal Farm. It’s sad, it’s outrageous and it’s criminal. But it is most certainly not funny.

–Ben Crystal

Devolution Of A Narrative

President Barack Obama and his Democratic accomplices have spun themselves sick trying to stay ahead of the scandal they created in Benghazi, Libya. Anyone who watched White House mouthpiece Jay Carney’s performance in the White House Press Room last week no doubt experienced liberal-induced nausea. And anyone who watched FOX News anchor Chris Wallace spank Obama surrogate Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.) Sunday morning knows the Democrats themselves have contracted a scorching case of partisan motion sickness.

And who can blame them? The talking points proffered by the fringe leftists who have taken over the Federal government like a group of choom-addled college students staging a sit-in in the dean’s office have swerved from the ridiculous to the insultingly stupid.

Observe the devolution of the talking points over time:

  • Benghazi was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video.
  • Libyan Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali is either lying or misinformed when he says the Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism.
  • Ambassador Chris Stevens never asked for extra security.
  • Information Specialist Sean Smith never warned anyone about his concerns an attack was imminent.
  • There was nothing anyone could have done.
  • No air or ground support was denied.
  • Obama was in the loop the whole time.
  • Libyan President Mohammed Magarief is either lying or misinformed when he says the Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism.
  • Benghazi was terrorism.
  • Benghazi was caused by the YouTube video. (Note: Obama continued to cite the YouTube lie for nearly a week after his own flunkies acknowledged Magarief was telling the truth.
  • It was the “fog of war.”
  • What difference, at this point, does it make?
  • No talking points were changed.
  • One talking point was changed.
  • Twelve talking points were changed.
  • We didn’t threaten, cajole or attempt to bribe any whistle-blowers.
  • You’re only asking because you’re racist.
  • “Benghazi happened a long time ago.”
  • It was President George W. Bush’s fault.
  • It was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s fault. (Really? Really.)
  • This whole debate is really a vast right-wing conspiracy aimed at destroying Hillary Clinton’s Presidential aspirations.
  • This is just political theater.

Were it not for the fact that he’s a simpering little twerp, I might feel bad for Carney. As even the corporate media shows signs of interest in the Benghazi cover-up (even far-left outlets like The New York Times now acknowledge Administration misdeeds), his service as the “Squealer” to Obama’s “Napoleon” is clearly taking its toll. At one point late in his dog and pony show Friday, his face was so red I thought he might stroke out on live television.

And the show is far from over. As the liberal monolith begins to fracture under the weight of defending Obama from his own misdeeds, the Democrats have already tried to slide another plate on the bar. It turns out the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of law-abiding American citizens involved a great deal more than just a few bottom-feeders in Cincinnati.

At least the summer ought to be exciting. Here’s hoping we survive it.

–Ben Crystal

Bye-Bye, Benghazi!

Breaking news — Obama lied. They give awards for that? And I expected 90% of America to look bigger. All this, plus — remedial history for liberals. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZWsXH711k&w=560&h=315]

The Choice Is Ours

As of this writing, the much-anticipated House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings on the Benghazi massacre and subsequent cover-up are less than a day away. Despite conservative anticipation and liberal dread over Wednesday’s festivities, I expect little in the way of new information will come to light. Instead, I suspect a great many disgraces to which we’re already privy will be depressingly confirmed.

Either President Barack Obama knew the situation in Libya had degraded to the point that American personnel were facing imminent and mortal peril, or he didn’t. If the former is true, then Obama turned his back on Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods to go party with his big-money cronies in Las Vegas. If the latter is true, then Obama is seriously insulated from some woefully poor decisions made in his name by woefully poor subordinates.

Either Obama knew the Benghazi attacks were a coordinated maneuver by islamofascist terrorists, or he didn’t. If the former is true, then Obama sacrificed American lives out of pure selfishness. If the latter is true, then our collective national security apparatus has been shredded by liberal politics and Las Vegas fundraisers.

Either Obama knew a badly produced, badly directed, badly scripted and badly acted 5-month-old YouTube video was not the impetus behind the attacks, or he didn’t. If the former is true, then Obama lied to the American people with the cool detachment of a serial killer. If the latter is true, then Obama is little more than a marionette operated by political operatives who possess the cool detachment of serial killers.

Either Obama knew Ambassador Susan Rice lied repeatedly to the Nation about the Benghazi attacks, or he didn’t. If the former is true, then Obama owes an apology to everyone accused of racism or misogyny for criticizing her shameless mendacity. If the latter is true, then Obama owes the same apology to the same people.

Either Obama knew former Secretary of State and presumptive 2016 Democratic Presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton lied during her now-infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” testimony, or he didn’t. If the former is true, then Clinton lied with his blessing. If the latter is true, then Clinton lied with his retroactive blessing.

The real tragedy of Benghazi — beyond the senseless loss of human life and the grief the massacre left in its wake — is the pointlessness of it all. On Sept. 11, Obama was contending with the weak-armed challenge of Mitt Romney. Protected by the corporate media, funded by millionaire and billionaire cronies from Hollywood to George Soros’ secret underground lair and worshipped by the low-information types in much the same way the rats of Hamelin worshipped the Pied Piper, Obama was as safe an electoral bet as any President since George H.W. Bush pushed Romney’s fellow ex-Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis, off the electoral roof. Had Obama simply said, “My bad,” his supporters would have shrugged Benghazi off just as easily as they have Operation Fast and Furious, the war on the Bill of Rights and the budget-busting cost increases Obama swore weren’t hiding in Obamacare like the monster in one of those teenage slasher films.

Either Americans can live with that, or we can’t. If the former is true, then we deserve no better than Obama. If the latter is true, the 2014 Congressional elections and 2016 Presidential election will likely be our last chance to do something about it. The choice is ours.

–Ben Crystal

Stupid Or Crazy

Normally, someone who oversees the engineering of a program that leads directly to the murders of hundreds of people and then acts as if questions about the program are somehow unfair or even racist is either an absolute idiot or an outright sociopath. But, as Americans have learned over the past four years, “normally” and “President Barack Obama” seldom collide in the same sentence.

Thus, not only can Obama preside over a government that created Operation Fast and Furious (OFF) and its body count, but he can blatantly stonewall investigators about the multimillion-dollar disaster that intentionally armed Mexican narcoterrorists. Moreover, not only can he blatantly stonewall investigators looking into OFF, but he can direct Attorney General Eric Holder to lie so unconvincingly that even a rat’s nest like the Congress will rule him in criminal and civil contempt. Moreover, not only can he direct his minions to perjure themselves in front of Congress, but he can travel to the country in which OFF left a trail of corpses and tell the grief-stricken survivors that the whole nightmare is someone else’s fault.

I have my doubts about Obama’s intellect. Considering his oddly ill-documented academic career and his serious lack of Constitutional comprehension (especially for a supposed con-law professor), it’s hardly unfair to wonder if his purported intellectual acumen is as manufactured as his other “Presidential” qualifications. However, I’ll be fair and acknowledge that Obama might not be stupid. He might be insane. What else would explain the speech he delivered to the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City on Thursday?

According to the man who Presided over OFF, Benghazi, Obamacare and an attempted assassination of the 2nd Amendment, so-called “gun violence” in Mexico doesn’t stem from the finest firepower the U.S. Department of Justice can funnel south. Instead, the tumult that confronts our southern neighbors stems from… Actually, he’s saying precisely that, although I don’t think he realizes it.

We also recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States… I will continue to do everything in my power to… keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people… So we’ll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong — behind bars.

His own Administration illegally exports guns to murderous narcoterrorists (over the objections of everyone involved with an IQ higher than earthworms), and he then blames a cabal of shadowy “gun traffickers” who sound an awful lot like the senior suits at the Justice Department.  Holder is the Attorney General, not an inmate at Leavenworth.

In a perverse sense, one almost has to admire Obama’s unmitigated gall. In blaming OFF’s Mexican casualties on American guns and gunrunners while refusing to acknowledge that his own minions are the gunrunners, he’s displaying magnificent arrogance, supreme cruelty, shocking stupidity or, more likely, some combination of the three. I wouldn’t be any less stunned if Al Gore delivered a speech on so-called “global warming” from a private jet paid for with Qatari oil money — not that anything that silly could ever transpire.

Nevertheless, I could be wrong. Obama may actually believe his own bull. Just as he may believe Obamacare wouldn’t hike premiums, amnesty for illegal aliens is a “civil right,” Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video and guns cause crime. We’ve finally found the answer to the question: “What’s worse: stupid or crazy?” And that answer is: “Both.”

–Ben Crystal

A Long Time Ago

Benghazi was just a crappy town in a crappy country, “global warming” was called “global cooling,”  and Kermit Gosnell was just another abortionist. Also: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz occasionally washed her hair. Now: Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83HK6SBbjBA&w=560&h=315]