What’s In A Name?

To the best of my recollection, sometime in the 1990s, the corporate media welded “gun” to “violence,” creating a rhetorical Frankenstein’s monster. With the exception of former Attorney General Janet Reno’s occasional combat operations against her fellow citizens, anytime a firearm featured into a crime, “gun violence” was blamed. People actually began falling victim to “gun violence” or “gun crime” or even “assault weapons.” Somehow, the Democrats managed to eliminate the perpetrators of crime, conjuring up images of walking, talking inanimate objects that loaded themselves and then hit the streets like the marching hammers in “Pink Floyd The Wall.”

And the American left sat up, brushed the crumbs off their bellies and began howling for someone to save them from the evil hordes of guns that had ruined their reverie. Not one ever noted the most important trait of phrases such as “gun violence,” “gun crime” and “assault weapons”: They’re idiotic deformations of the language.

To be sure, violence, crime and assault are certainly not idiotic. Anyone who has served in combat, worked in law enforcement, been victimized by a criminal or even observed unsupervised union thugs interacting with senior citizens who oppose Obamacare knows that real violence is really not funny. Nor should it ever be taken lightly. Therefore, when liberals attach “gun” to “violence” in an overt effort to demonize the implement by which violence is visited upon a victim, they’re diminishing not only the actions of the offender, but the suffering of the victim.

I often hear my fellow conservatives respond to liberal, anti-Bill of Rights activists by asking, “What about ‘knife violence?'” or positing some similar rhetorical argument. I say that kind of response is mistaken on two fronts:

  1. By demanding further qualifications (i.e., “knife violence,” “car violence” or “bat violence”), conservatives are ceding ground liberals don’t actually occupy. Once you say “knife violence,” you’ve acknowledged “gun violence” is a legitimate classification. It isn’t. Violence is violence.
  2. By ceding said ground, conservatives are allowing liberals to define the issue as being about inanimate objects rather than people. It may be clichéd, but “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” is indubitably accurate. Indeed, it’s a far more accurate assessment of the nature of crime and violence than mealymouthed platitudes liberals might form to cast blame on the wrong culprit.

From the dawn of recorded history until this very moment, no gun has ever inflicted violence on anyone, harmed anyone or killed anyone. Even in the rare cases of accidental discharge, the gun was merely a means of conveyance, like a car is to transportation. People hurt each other and themselves. Since guns are just hunks of metal and polymer, they can’t form intent, much less cause harm. Left to their own devices, guns are overengineered doorstops, paperweights and/or art.

Recently, The Associated Press announced the elimination of “illegal immigrant” and “islamist” from its stylebook. Evidently, that once-respected organization worries about the feelings of, well, illegal immigrants and islamists. By my own reckoning, both phrases lack a certain lyrical accuracy; I prefer the more legally accurate “illegal alien” and “islamofascist.” But I can’t help but notice that while The AP – and, hence, the corporate media — tries to adjust the lexicon to reflect the delicate sensitivities of criminals, it possesses no such compunction about the legitimate concerns of law-abiding Americans.

Obama Cares!

Barry and Michelle tighten their (designer) belts. History repeats itself for poor Piers. And the First Athlete sucks at two sports. All this — plus — MORE COWBELL! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZyPtnXOB7k&w=560&h=315]

Pro-Science

I highly doubt many of you are unaware of my stance on so-called “global warming” (aka “global cooling,” “climate change” or “ManBearPig”). I suspect most of you share my rather dim view of former Vice President Al “The Oilman Goeth” Gore and his “inconvenient slide show,” though I am aware that some of you still cling bitterly to the last vestige of his fading glory.

Of course, my refusal to bow to the low-information set and their invective-laden insistence that ManBearPig is as real as actual stuff does seem to elicit some red-faced tirades. Gore and company’s increasingly suspect belief that something bad is going to happen has become religion to liberals. And like any zealots, our Democrat friends get more than a mite testy when their dogma is challenged. Thus have I observed the newest epithet in the ever-growing liberal lexicon of hate: “anti-science.” For refusing to swallow the global warmists’ anecdotally based pseudo logic, I am apparently “anti-science.”

That sort of ad hominem pabulum might pass for discourse in the White House or the studio audience of a Bill Maher telecast, but it isn’t actual debate — just as ManBearPig isn’t actual science. Allow me to demonstrate.

About 17 billion years ago, it happened. Better minds than mine have wrestled with the nature of it, what preceded it, what caused it and what exactly it produced. What we all seem to agree upon is the fact that it wasn’t, and then it really was. What captivates me isn’t what it was. I expect many eons more will pass before anyone figures it out. What really inspires my inner science geek is what happened after it.

In the first few moments after it, there wasn’t much to look at. Within a millisecond or two, hydrogen atoms had formed; but stable hydrogen and helium atoms didn’t debut for nearly a half million years. The first star didn’t begin to shine for nearly 100 million years. The first galaxy didn’t coalesce until nearly a billion years had passed since it. Our own sun didn’t rise and shine until almost 10 billion years had passed. And the first human didn’t do his first Fred Flintstone until mere moments ago, from an astronomical perspective.

Everything in between it and now has been the product of a crescendo of creation and destruction. From atoms to galaxies and everything in between, now exists as it does only because everything that happened before it not only happened, but happened in a fairly precise order. A series of almost ludicrously unlikely events followed one another throughout all those years like dominoes on a cosmic table: seemingly random yet magnificently structured, unfolding on scales from the infinitesimally small to the infinitely huge. From the first buzzing subatomic particles to the galactic superclusters spanning the entire universe, it led unexpectedly, yet inexorably, to now. In the words of One far greater than I: “without form, and void” (Genesis 1:2).

From the aforementioned timeline of the universe, I can divine two inescapable truths:

  1. The idea that a collection of perfectly ordered coincidences of almost astronomical unlikelihood happened despite incalculably bad odds without assistance from an entity that exists beyond all of it defies logic.
  2. The idea that any of those perfectly ordered coincidences could be altered, stopped or started by a creature that has existed for less than 1/100,000th of all of history — and has never ventured farther from its home than a few hundred thousand miles — defies basic common sense.

On my side, I have a geological and astronomical record that dates back close to 20 billion years. I have the inescapable certitudes of math and physics. And I have what my old Western civilization professor, the incomparable Dr. Stegemann, referred to as “the accumulated wisdom of the tribe”: the sum total of tens of thousands of years of humanity’s progress toward answering the ultimate questions.

My detractors have a fluidly anecdotal theory based on 150 years of observations that trades fact for folly and has required no fewer than three name changes in four decades due to climatological cycles it has yet to predict correctly. If that’s “pro-science,” then color me “anti-science,” I suppose.

–Ben Crystal

Safe At The Gun Show

One of the larger of the touring gun shows came through town recently; and being the sort of fellow I am, I gladly paid the entry fee and spent a few hours browsing the wares. I’ve written about my affinity for gun shows before, and I’m often asked by my non-“gun guy” friends to explain my regular attendance. I find my “it’s a traveling carnival of awesome” description elicits more confusion than understanding. The best way I can explain it would be through the magic of simile.

Ben is to gun show as:

  • Gearhead is to auto show.
  • Woman is to one of those gigantic shoe stores in the outlet mall.
  • Union member is to ugly mob.

But those of you who find firearms and firearm ownership either uninteresting or appalling would be both mortified and surprised by the goings-on at a gun show. The rows upon rows of firearms and firearm-related accoutrement would mortify you, while the complete lack of hatred and shouted invective would surprise you. After all, the image that the liberals and their corporate media flacks have conjured suggests a deafening collection of goose-stepping whackjobs, backwoods hillbillies and lunatic doomsday prophets. Of course, like every caricature created by the Democrats in their endless war on the Bill of Rights, the aforementioned stereotypes are no more valid than the liberal assumption that black people are incapable of fending for themselves without government assistance.

To be sure, there are some oddities floating through the gun show atmosphere. There’s the guy wearing army-issue body armor that doesn’t even come close to covering his non-army-issue beer gut. There’s the dude hawking EOTech™ clones that are only slightly more believable than Attorney General Eric Holder’s Congressional testimony on Operation Fast and Furious. And more often than not there’s a guy selling fake World War II memorabilia who hopes you won’t notice the “made in China” sticker until after you get home.

But there isn’t a lot of yelling. There isn’t a great deal of voiced outrage. There are no mobs of indignant women’s studies majors waving placards and marching about in no particular direction. In an atmosphere in which the headlines are dominated by ludicrous attempts by liberals to demonize firearms as possessing an innately sinister nature unto themselves, no one was so much as mildly surprised by a gun. With everything from those trendy pink-handled .22s to a fully functional, semi-automatic replica of a Goryunov machine gun, the gun show represents a chamber of horrors to those shrieking Brady Campaigners; yet shoppers and vendors alike were as comfortable as Michael Moore at all-you-can-eat night at the local Krispy Kreme.

There were no shouts of blind hatred for those who don’t share the assemblage’s political ideologies, no demands for free stuff at the expense of someone else’s hard work, no cheers for the misfortune of others, no screams for the maiming, murdering or general demise of anyone. There were no beatings, no stabbings and — contrary to deliberate misconception — no shooting rampages.

There are thousands of firearms and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition in room filled to the rafters with firearm enthusiasts. If the gun grabbers’ slander is to be believed, such a tableau should have naturally progressed to a rolling horde of wild-eyed barbarians and the kind of body count usually reserved for a Third World civil war. Yet even Piers Morgan would have been safer than the crown jewels. At least until he got a load of that Goryunov; that would have sent him running for the nearest “gun-free zone.”

–Ben Crystal

Skool Is Goodest

Nestled close by the beautiful beaches of Florida’s famed Boca Raton lies an institution of higher learning in which young minds are nurtured in an academic embrace as warm as the Gulf Stream breezes that flow gently through the campus. Inside the magnificent-yet-comfortable buildings, world-renowned for their architectural perfection, one of the finest collections of minds ever assembled imparts its encyclopedic wisdom to rising generations of future accomplishment.

With multiple Nobel laureates in nearly every department, the quality of instruction is augmented not only by the state-of-the-art learning facilities, but an average student-to-professor ratio of 10-to-1. This school’s every discipline is enhanced by the finest equipment available to mankind. The working fusion reactor will light up prospective physics majors, while language majors will surely be talking about the immersive foreign-language-only dormitories. For the historians: A library with original copies of each of the Founding Fathers’ memoirs will transport them into the past. For the ecologists: A fully self-sustaining bio-dome will feel like home.

This school’s athletic programs produce multiple national championships in multiple sports and challenges among the elite each season, while the 4 million-square-foot field house staffed with certified personal trainers and the latest technological advances and comforts makes fitness a reality for every student. In the dormitories, the school’s world-renowned design and engineering majors have created a living environment that not only is as comfortable as home, but also is optimized for the ultimate combination of ergonomics and academics. And when refueling is required for the rigors of study, the dining hall is Michelin-rated 4 stars and operates 24 hours a day.

What aspiring young mind wouldn’t dream of earning a degree from such a place? What parent wouldn’t dream the same for his child? Armed with a degree from such an esteemed
university, a young person could do nearly anything. The benefit to society of multiple graduates of the place would be almost incalculable.

Of course, no such college exists. However, one could matriculate to Florida Atlantic University, which offers courses such as “Intercultural Communications” under the watchful eye of Palm Beach Democratic Party Vice Chairman Deandre Poole. Until last week, the class included the following exercise (from the teachers’ manual that accompanies the textbook Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition):

Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper.

Just think of the career paths open to a survivor of such a school. Seriously, think of them. Because all I can come up with involves either working for the government or not working at all. After all, the Democratic Party can’t pay everyone to make House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s lattes; and MSNBC isn’t hiring writers these days.

–Ben Crystal

Liberty 101: Exam Time

All right, everyone; take your pencils out and put away your books. Professor Ben is here to take stock of just how much you’ve managed to retain from the reams of knowledge proffered by the rest of the faculty here at the Personal Liberty Digest Institute for Higher Learning and General Awesomeness. I’ve tried to cover as wide a range of topics as possible, all the better to gauge your progress. You’ll find the questions tough, but fair. Of course, some of you will fail to earn a passing grade and will be furious with me for refusing to “level the playing field.” That’s a tough break, kiddies. This is our field; we don’t move the goal posts to make it easier for the junior varsity.

Try to remember: There are no stupid questions, but there are some really stupid answers and some really, really stupid people:

Q: The $6 trillion rise in the national debt is a direct result of:

  1. President Barack Obama’s wildly ill-advised attempts to nationalize huge swaths of America’s economy.
  2. The fuel bills for greedy conservative’s private jets.
  3. Dick Cheney’s evil plans.
  4. Michelle Obama’s shopping habits.

Q: The “sequester” was created by:

  1. President Barack Obama.
  2. Speaker of the House John Boehner.
  3. Dick Cheney.
  4. Evil rich people. (But not the really cool ones like Al Gore and Sean Penn.)

Q: Because of the “sequester”:

  1. White House tours have been canceled.
  2. Michelle and Barack Obama are taking the girls on a “staycation” to the East Wing this year.
  3. Vice President Joe Biden is staying only in motels that charge by the hour.
  4. Obama has cut back to using Pinnacle™ golf balls instead of the Titleist ProV1x’s™ he prefers when he plays The Floridian™ with Tiger Woods.

Q: People’s health insurance premiums are rising because:

  1. Obamacare’s costs are untenable at current rates.
  2. Insurance companies are, like, totally evil and stuff.
  3. Doctors are mean.
  4. There’s a secret plot to help Donna Brazile maintain relevancy.

Q: As a direct result of Obamacare:

  1. Birth control pills are pretty much taxpayer-covered.
  2. Planned Parenthood is retraining abortionists to dispense IUDs.
  3. Senator Bob Menendez is thinking about moving to Las Vegas.
  4. Sandra Fluke is constantly out of breath.

Q: Hillary Clinton reversed her position on same-sex marriage because:

  1. She’s a calculating political animal who shares her husband’s penchant for governing by opinion poll.
  2. She figures gay couples should suffer just as much as she has.
  3. Her husband did, and she has yet to secure his 2016 endorsement.
  4. May Day at Janet Reno’s house last year was really awkward.

Q: A nuclear-armed North Korea:

  1. Seriously threatens the balance of global power, given the nature and associations of the Pyongyang regime.
  2. Gives the Chicoms something to do besides torturing dissidents.
  3. Gives the Chicoms something to do besides counting the IOUs we’ve written them.
  4. Gives the Chicoms something to do besides enabling the Pyongyang regime’s nuclear ambitions.

Q: Iran’s increasing belligerence is caused by:

  1. The fact that the only thing worse than an islamofascist is nuclear-armed islamofascist.
  2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attempts to make up for being a tiny little man.
  3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attempts to make up for being a tiny little man, in more ways than one.
  4. Something President George W. Bush did in the country next door.

Q: The so-called “Arab Spring” has produced:

  1. An increasingly dicey Mideast with war nearing virtual certainty.
  2. Wild hijinks like Benghazi.
  3. Iran’s totally not-weapons-related nuclear program.
  4. More for former President Jimmy Carter to blame on Israel.

Q: Benghazi is:

  1. A town in Libya where four Americans were murdered by islamofascists while Obama and his aides did less than nothing and then created a cover-up that continues to this day.
  2. A town in Libya where a YouTube video made everyone go temporarily insane with rage six months after the video was released.
  3. Something you can get from drinking the water in Libya.
  4. Totally no big deal, because… shut up.

Q: Obama’s approval rating has sunk below 50 percent because:

  1. Instead of showing constructive leadership on the economy, diplomacy or society, he has whined and griped about how those poopy Republicans are mean to him.
  2. Somewhere between 50 percent and 55 percent of the American people are racist.
  3. Somewhere between 50 percent and 55 percent of the American people are really racist.
  4. He drank the water in Libya and got a scorching case of the Benghazis.

Q: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to dictate the size of beverage containers because:

  1. He actually thinks people’s dietary habits fall under his authority.
  2. The only carbonated beverage he considers worth drinking is Veuve Clicquot™.
  3. Soda makes his armed bodyguards gassy.
  4. The uniforms he picked out for his minions are not particularly slimming.

Q: The Democrats want to ban so-called “assault weapons” because:

  1. If law-abiding citizens can defend themselves, tyranny can be a mite tricky to impose.
  2. Guns are secretly imbued with an innate evil that drives people to kill people; but only liberals can see it, so it’s up to them to save the rest of us.
  3. They’re worried Joe Biden might get ahold of a “tacticool” Ruger 10-22 and massacre the White House squirrel population.
  4. All of the above.

Q: Despite the Democrats’ demonization of semi-automatic rifles, the only actual military that deploys soldiers with semi-automatic rifles as standard practice is:

  1. Trick question; no national military equips regular front-line soldiers with semi-automatic rifles.
  2. A couple of those “–stan” countries that got sprayed all over the map after the Soviet Union exploded.
  3. One of those Eastern European countries with too many consonants in its name.
  4. The security force at Michael Moore’s country estate.

Q: The Department of Homeland Security is planning to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition because:

  1. They’re stockpiling five rounds for every man, woman and child in the country for some reason they’re refusing to divulge.
  2. They’re too lazy to reload their own brass.
  3. Secretary Janet Napolitano is thinking about turning “pro” and needs the target practice.
  4. Who wants to know?

Q: Dr. Ben Carson is:

  1. A world-renowned neurosurgeon who is standing up publicly to Obama’s bullying and fearmongering.
  2. “…the right wing’s go-to black token.”
  3. “…a pawn to get more black votes and change that image of the racist party.”
  4. “…the Negro du jour.”

Q: The recent spate of wintry weather has been caused by:

  1. Winter.
  2. High-capacity rifle magazines.
  3. Spider goats.
  4. A mythical creature which is half-man, half-bear and half-pig.

Well, how did you fare? For those of you who haven’t wandered off to compare your NCAA tournament brackets to the one the President filled out instead of doing his job, the correct answer to every question was (a). For those of you who actually needed me to tell you which answers were correct, you’re going to need some remedial coursework. I recommend the Personal Liberty Digest™.

–Ben Crystal

Meet The ‘Press’

There’s a grave somewhere in which Tim Russert is spinning like the smart meter on Al Gore’s mansion during Masseuse-apalooza. Russert spent decades building NBC News’ “Meet the Press” into the benchmark of Sunday morning appointment television. Not only did viewers flock to the Peacock network to watch Russert conduct a weekly symphony of journalism and celebrity, the roster of guests was a veritable who’s who of the movers and shakers of the world.

Perhaps it’s the pressure of trying to fill the oversized footprints of a legend like Russert. Perhaps it’s the relentless drumbeat of liberal malarkey that has replaced actual discourse. Perhaps President Barack Obama promised him a spot in his next foursome with Tiger Woods. Whatever the reason, David Gregory has fallen into the same pit of partisanship that has turned the rest of NBC’s news apparatus into a weird little carnival of mealymouthed mendacity.

On Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press,” Gregory hosted yet another in the seemingly endless series of increasingly fruitless Democratic efforts to dismantle the Bill of Rights. While discussing so-called “gun control” with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Gregory coughed up an old and debunked “loophole” statistic: “[I]sn’t that preferable to a big loophole where you have all these — 40 percent of sales, private sales, one-on-one, where you’ve got no ability to trace it?”

Gregory was trying to make a point about what liberals believe is an epidemic of unregulated and unregistered sales of firearms between private citizens. For the gun-grabbing tyrants of the left, two law-abiding Americans conducting a simple business transaction free of the withering gaze of the government, President Barack Obama and/or NBC News is simply too much to bear. Thus did they concoct the aforementioned “40 percent.”

To be honest, I wouldn’t mind if that number were accurate. After all, Americans don’t require government approval to exercise their 1st Amendment rights; so they neither want nor need the Democrats’ approval to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, the real percentage of gun sales conducted between consenting citizens is around 10 percent, an admission even The Washington Post was forced to make following Obama’s use of the number in a ghoulish speech on so-called “gun violence” more than a month after the Newtown massacre. It’s worth noting that not only was Obama lying during his January fearmongering session, but he also omitted the fact that Connecticut already has the sort of anti-freedom laws the Democrats want to force upon the rest of us — for all the good they did the victims of Newtown.

While I don’t condone liberalism’s leading lights deliberately fabricating anti-Bill of Rights talking points for the sole purpose of, well, abrogating the Bill of Rights, I do understand that people so completely bent on control of The People will lie like Attorney General Eric Holder testifying about Operation Fast and Furious. But Gregory is supposed to rise above petty partisan dishonesty.

Democrats lie; it’s what they do. Obama deploys the “40 percent.” Congressman Charlie Rangel, disgraced but re-elected anyway, claims: “[W]e’re talking about millions of kids dying, being shot down by assault weapons.” Piers Morgan and Michael Moore jabber like cracked-out orangutans on basic cable television, blaming inanimate objects for everything except Morgan’s weak chin and Moore’s lack of self-control around fatty foods. But they’re politicians. Gregory is, ostensibly, a journalist.

In December, Gregory displayed a standard-capacity magazine during an attempted interrogation of LaPierre. His actions violated a local ordinance which bars possession of any magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds. Though he escaped prosecution for his televised crime, Gregory did succeed in proving that anti-gun laws have no bearing or effect on people determined to break them, even pencil-necked media hacks who couldn’t actually use a firearm without wetting their pants.

Gregory’s murdering his own credibility is shameful, but not unexpected. Too bad “Meet the Press” got caught in the crossfire. Of course, the real estate between liberals and their goal of comprehensive gun control is as dangerous as your average Democrat-run city. Tim Russert would be mortified.

–Ben Crystal

All Hail Hillary!

According to The New York Times, it’s official: Former Secretary of State and presumptive 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped on support for same-sex marriage. In the annals of staged campaign events disguising a lack of principle, Clinton’s policy reversal is no President Barack Obama debt ceiling turnaround (it’s “unpatriotic”); but it’s certainly a hall-of-fame pandering effort. To be honest, I had no idea Clinton was ever against same-sex marriage. She clearly had no issues with a no-sex marriage. (Not that I can blame her for that; her husband was having enough for both of them.)

Let’s be honest with each other, kiddies. Clinton’s announcing she is now for something that most Americans already assumed she supported is about as Earth-shattering as Michelle Obama coming out publicly in favor of junk food and the taxpayers’ American Express card. Clinton’s statement didn’t — couldn’t — deliver her any wavering support. And it’s difficult to imagine all that many conservatives saying: “I was pretty mad about that whole Benghazi nightmare. And I remember what a Lady MacBeth she played as a first lady. But if she thinks Steve and Frank can tie the knot, I guess I’m good.”

There is no doubt that same-sex marriage is one of the more bitterly contested issues in the country. While it doesn’t rise to the level of the debate over the government-subsidized genocide of abortion, it’s difficult to imagine many issues on which Americans disagree more sharply. My own attitude is based on my own experience: I’ve been divorced. I’m as useful in marital politics as I would be in outer space. Nonetheless, if Hillary feels a need to goose her base three years before the green flag, she’s welcome to it.

But, in watching her weirdly fireside-style address, I couldn’t keep the following thoughts at bay:

  • This is a campaign speech. Of all the issues pressing down on us as a Nation and a world, you’re yammering about same-sex marriage. Your former boss has shoveled so many IOU’s onto the national debt that it’s the size of a Martian volcano. Any thoughts, Madame Secretary?
  • Your tenure as the Nation’s chief diplomat has coincided with everything from a nuclear-ambitious Iran to a nuclear-accomplished North Korea. The Mideast is tearing at the seams. How will you steer the ship of state off the foreign rocks upon which Barack Obama has foundered it?
  • How about the resurgence of al-Qaida and the islamofascist terrorists who think Obama is about as scary as Winnie the Pooh?
  • Europe’s economy is plunging faster than Ashley Judd’s neckline. Our own is staggering like a punch-drunk prizefighter. Will your Presidency be as filled with monetary hijinks?
  • With apologies to Senator Howard Baker, what did you know about the events of Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya; and when did you know it? Your former boss’s Administration concocted no fewer than four different versions of the story, each radically different from the others. While the corporate media has covered up the cover-up and the liberal rank and file have swallowed each tale whole without complaint; you’re now running for President. How can we trust you, since we clearly can’t trust Obama?

There are other questions Clinton will need to answer — unless she plans to continue the Obama policy of obfuscation and outright dishonesty. As I mentioned in the wake of her staged policy reversal on same-sex marriage:

Whatever your opinion on the issue in question, have no doubt: Hillary Clinton’s… every move is dictated by raw ambition. For those who oppose it: This is just another example of the soullessness which has defined her career. For those who support it: She is no ally of yours. As always, she will reverse course again the moment she thinks it’s politically expedient to do so.

Reminds me of, well, pretty much every Democrat out there — although none of them can match Clinton’s look in a pantsuit.

–Ben Crystal

The Democrats’ Minority Problem

During a CPAC panel discussion on the Democrats’ divisive racial politics, an attendee made the following remark: “Blacks should be happy that the slave master gave them shelter, clothing, and food.” That’s a remarkably silly point of view, and it would be best left to the Democrats who continue to espouse such policies under the guise of governmental assistance in return for votes.

Although the speaker was roundly jeered by the assemblage, he ended up in a personal discussion with the panel host, a black man named K. Carl Smith. Smith later said of the man, “[W]e left as friends.”

What Smith could have said was: “I’m sorry, sir. This is a conservative meeting. If you’re looking for inveterate and ignorant racism, you should try the nearest Democratic confab. Just look for the hoods.” But conservatism doesn’t recognize race as a character trait the way liberalism does, and Smith proved so by counseling the man and attempting to show him the error of his ways.

While Smith and the rest of the assemblage shut down the “slave master” nonsense, liberals let their racist freak flags fly on Twitter. Following a rousing speech by Dr. Ben Carson, the Democrats renewed their bigoted assault on the world-renowned physician. Carson actually mentioned during his remarks that detractors had treated him to a barrage of racial epithets in the wake of his critique of President Barack Obama. Subsequently, Carson was likely prepared for the racist animus liberals launched at him in return for daring to step off the liberal plantation. Among the barbs the left jabbed at Carson:

 

 

And the real winner of this week’s Robert Byrd Memorial Grand Dragon Award:

 
Carson, the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is one of the most respected neurosurgeons on the planet. Only an idiot would call him “dumb.” Only an almost irredeemably stupid person would call him a “nigger.”

And then, American University professor Deen Freelon gave us a glimpse at his own racial syllabus:

 

 
Evidently, Freelon thinks people who object to his attempts to marginalize Carson — and any black man who doesn’t toe the liberal line — are the “lunatic fringe.” I wonder how many parents of American University students are rethinking that tuition check.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Congressman Allen West, self-made success story Herman Cain and others have dealt with the left’s racism, mostly with the sort of grace that Freelon wouldn’t recognize if it extinguished a burning cross in his front yard. For a political movement that Freelon and his ilk cast as out of touch with minorities, conservatism sure seems to attract a sizable number of serious — and seriously intelligent — people.

Democrats routinely manage to find the rare racist apples in the conservative barrel and then suggest that the whole lot is rotten. But conservatives criticize liberals over policy, not skin color. I wish Obama were a markedly different person. But I wish the same about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, both of whom are as white as the sheets Byrd used to wear to his Klan meetings.

During his own speech at CPAC, West told an enraptured audience: “I’m speaking from experience when I tell you that there is nothing on this green earth that a liberal progressive fears more than a black American who wants a better life and a smaller government.” The liberal progressive reaction to him, Carson and others proves him right.

–Ben Crystal

Habemus Magnum Octo

Quick — to the Choom-mobile! Just your garden variety Democrat war on women. And Old Man McCain gets grumpier. All this — plus — Welcome to the Motor City! Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!
 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlf0O7h4wyQ&w=560&h=315]

A Cool Day In Texas

Maybe it’s the nature of large annual festivals. Entropy is a law, after all. It happened to Lollapalooza right about the time Metallica showed up. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of skiing in Park City, Utah, during the Sundance Film Festival knows how much “indie cred” is left in that annual Hollywood hobnob hoedown. Hell, even CPAC, which hosted President Ronald Reagan a dozen times, is featuring Donald Trump this year. It’s not that I think “The Donald” is a self-serving buffoon who is tailor-made to be a ringmaster for the twisted freakshow that is reality television; it’s just that I think… Well, that’s pretty much exactly what I think.

But down Austin, Texas, way, the ultimate cool-annual-gathering-gone-bad story is unfolding right in front of us. Once an almost painfully hip music and arts festival, South By SouthWest (SXSW) has morphed into another faux-hipster snotfest at which corporate-backed liberal icons indoctrinate smug twerps who might as well sport nametags that read “Hello, My Name Is: Low Information Voter.” In all honesty, SXSW is welcome to invite, feature and obtain enormous corporate sponsorship deals from whomever the organizers wish. But I’m afraid the cool factor has melted away in a sea of liberal hypocrisy. Either that, or SXSW is actually what passes for hip these days, in which case the whole country is seriously screwed.

I’m willing to admit I’m not the coolest cat on the block. Not only was I alive when that reanimated corpse they’re passing off as Madonna was “Like a Virgin,” but I’m pretty sure I was alive when she still was a virgin. But I’m Jay-Z’s next Grammy compared to one of the headliners at this year’s SXSW.

Global warming inventor, alleged massage therapist-molester and foreign oil beneficiary Al Gore hit the stage to a roar of approval. While banners for Samsung, AT&T and other corporate giants fluttered in the Texas breeze, the nine-figure-fortune holder and private-jet traveler proffered leftist bons mots; and the evidently irony proof audience lapped up the tired platitudes like thirsty kittens.

The multimillionaire former Vice President and self-proclaimed Internet inventor took to lambasting income inequality, something he called the “stalker economy,” so-called “global warming” (or whatever they’re calling it this week) and even the coming plague of “spider goats.” And then, in a moment that could happen only at a mass assembly of liberals, Gore fired off this non-sequitur: “The NRA is a complete fraud…” I guess it takes one to know one, right, Albert?

Instead of jeers, Gore’s attack on the NRA earned a standing ovation. The epicenter of American cool, version 2013, got on its feet to cheer the greatest living exemplar of liberal hypocrisy for attacking a group he used to support over an issue with which it is unconnected in a place in which it would never be welcomed.

Either SXSW has declined into an orgy of corporate-co-opted pop entertainment or members of the next generation of American style makers and trendsetters are skinny jeans-wearing drones who honestly believe pabulum puked out by eco-nerds like Gore is manna from heaven. Now that I’ve thought about it, I think we might be screwed.

–Ben Crystal

The Kentucky Derby

Let me call time-out for a moment and address the liberals who skulk around the dark corners of our comments section. Hey, kids. It’s your pal, Ben. Since we have this moment together, I just wanted to offer my gratitude for your continued readership. If I’ve offered you half the entertainment you’ve given me (and your remarks suggest I have), then you’re — well — welcome. Now, I wonder if I might ask you for a teensy little favor in return for the daily slices of awesome we provide you free of charge here at the Personal Liberty Digest™: Please support Ashley Judd’s prospective candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky.

Now, I’m not asking just for myself. Think of the endless material the second most attractive and third most talented of the Judd ladies will provide not only for me, but for all the pundits and commentators who need a few kickers to slip into their routines in between lines about President Barack Obama’s penchant for murdering Americans and Vice President Joe Biden’s penchant for mortifying them.

Judd is a multimillionaire Hollywood bubblehead whose lone political “accomplishment” is a graduate degree from the same university that boasts masters-level alumni like President George W. Bush, and we know how she probably feels about “W.” Beyond that, she’s been in some marginally successful films — although generally opposite someone who possesses enough talent to make up for her wooden performance.

I don’t just want to hear Judd tell the people of a State that produces the third most coal in the Nation and is home to the single most productive coalfield about her belief that coal mining is the equivalent of “rape” and “the era of coal plant is over, unacceptable.”

I don’t just want to hear Judd tell the people of a State that has seen a net growth in population during every decade since we sent King George’s boys packing about her belief that “it’s unconscionable to breed.”

I don’t just want to hear Judd tell the people of a State in which nearly 40 percent of the residents self-identify as evangelical Christians that “… Christianity… gives us a God that is like a man, a God presented and discussed exclusively in male imagery, which legitimizes and seals male power. It is the intention to dominate, even if the intention to dominate is nowhere visible.”

I don’t just want to hear Judd tell the people of Kentucky that a harpy from Hollywood who vacations in Scotland and represented Tennessee as a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention is the right person to speak for the Bluegrass State in the Senate.

And I don’t just want to hear some bloviating Tinseltown super-liberal tell a State whose other Senator is Rand Paul — and which gave Republican milquetoast Mitt Romney a 23-point win over Obama in the most recent election — that she’s the best choice in 2014.

I don’t even want to hear Judd campaigning with her “2012 citizen hero” and fake Congressional witness and apparent sex addict Sandra Fluke among the aforementioned Kentuckians. Actually, I really, really do. I want to watch her turn herself — and the Democrats who will be forced to back her — inside out in an effort to sway the votes of people who positively despise her kind of arrogant, sanctimonious hypocrisy.

I want Judd to roll through the primaries uncontested so she’s well-rested for the general election. And then, I want her to run smack into the legitimate conservative who ousted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Republican primary. She’ll lose by 25 points — maybe 15, if she agrees to do full-frontal nudity.

–Ben Crystal

Adios, Hugo!

I’m still trying to make sense of it. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, darling of the American left, has passed away. Today, Democrats from San Francisco to Midtown Manhattan struggle to come to terms with their grief and disbelief. How can there be justice in the universe if a people’s hero like Chavez has been taken from us so soon?

He did everything right. He stole private property for supposed redistribution and used it to build a personal fortune estimated to be as high as $2 billion. He nationalized Venezuela’s oil industry, simultaneously sticking it to the evil “big oil” companies who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to extract the crude from beneath Venezuelan feet and thumbing his nose at the United States. He crushed opposition by any means necessary, including repeated crackdowns on media that failed to toe his Stalinist line. He demonized freedom and free nations, all the while grinding a once bright and thriving Latin American country into another monotonous and fearful police state. He palled around with all the right people, making bromantic gestures to murderous islamofascist tyrants, terrorist-backing lunatics, communist despots, Hollywood morons and even President Barack Obama.

Despite all his successes in turning Venezuela into the American liberal’s idea of Shangri-La, Chavez developed cancer. Even then, he did everything right. Rather than fly to the United States to receive the very best treatment regimens available (courtesy of a system anathematic to his ideal), Chavez stuck to his socialist guns. He flew to Venezuela’s sister-in-socialism, Cuba, and availed himself of the many modern medical miracles proffered by multimillionaire war profiteer Michael Moore’s favorite healthcare system. (I wonder if they did the bloodletting with leeches?)

Chavez stepped on his people’s necks. He stole everything within reach. He murdered dissent, dismembered freedom of the press and buried personal property rights in the “people’s” backyard. In about a decade, Chavez built exactly the country today’s American Democrats consider the real “shining city on a hill.” He was even friends with Sean Penn, for crying out loud.

Despite it all, he’s gone. The ultimate expression of Obamacare couldn’t save him. All that’s left to do is mourn. Some will publicly bemoan their sadness, such as the people gathering in San Francisco. Others, like the Democratic Party mouthpiece New York Times, will pen adoring eulogies praising the despot’s “energy.” And I will miss the parrot. That bird was the smartest liberal I ever saw.

Vaya con Dios, Hugo. Tell Adolf, Josef and Mao I said: “Hot enough for ya?”

–Ben Crystal

Surviving Obama

If you’re reading this, then you’re one of the blessed few who somehow survived sequestration. By “blessed few,” I mean “everyone on the planet.” And by “sequestration,” I mean “infinitesimally minor reduction in the growth of our already grotesquely obese government.”

So, this is life in post-sequester America. Oddly, it looks remarkably similar to pre-sequester America. Despite dire warnings of horror issued by everyone from sequestration’s creator, President Barack Obama, to such respected Congressional luminaries as Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the world did not end. Our troops from Afghanistan to central Africa (yep, Obama has them there, too) didn’t suddenly find themselves without ammunition. And 170 million Americans didn’t wake up to find themselves unemployed. Highways and bridges didn’t buckle and disintegrate. And the Internal Revenue Service certainly didn’t halt its efforts to extract Uncle Sam’s annual pound of flesh. Hell, the U.S. Postal Service didn’t even stop delivering my Cabelas catalog to the neighbors. Vice President Joe Biden has been downgraded from Air Force to Amtrak on his 120-mile trip from Washington to Wilmington, but that’s mostly because he likes to stick his head out of the window like a Labrador retriever between stops.

I expect a little historical perspective is in order. During the most recent State of the Union, Obama bemoaned what he termed “manufactured crises.” Perhaps that was his motivation in manufacturing the sequester, a silly idea to which Obama finally admitted on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” when his minion Gene Sperling acknowledged Obama’s duplicity regarding the massively overhyped reduction in the increase in future government spending.

All the shouting about Americans sacrificing security, employment and even food was merely a situation cut from the whole cloth of Obama and the Democrats’ own folly. Evidently, the endless recession, the horde of illegal aliens pouring across our borders, Superstorm Sandy, al-Qaida’s African resurgence, the Benghazi murders and cover-up, Attorney General Eric Holder’s criminal and civil offenses in covering up Operation Fast and Furious and even the skyrocketing violent crime in Obama’s own hometown weren’t enough to keep the Democrats focused on the plight their derelictions have created. And with the public beginning to catch on to the usual phantom horrors like so-called “global warming” (or whatever they’re calling it this week), they invented sequester, blamed it on the Republicans, tried to use it to scare the pants off the public, attacked the credibility of anyone who questioned their narrative and then finally owned up to the whole thing.

Here’s a thought: Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats put the kind of effort into doing something constructive that they put into lying, slander and fearmongering, the bleak future of post-sequester America might be decidedly less gray. Then again, given the trail of crimes and misdemeanors (and bodies) left behind by Obama and the Democrats every time they do something they consider constructive, perhaps we’re better off if they stick to manufacturing crises.

–Ben Crystal

The Sequester Follies

I knew the so-called “sequester” house of cards would ultimately collapse. As Wayne Allyn Root pointed out in Sequestration Ponzi Scheme and as and Bob Livingston pointed out in When Cuts Aren’t Really Cuts, the sequester was never more than a pittance, an empty symbolic gesture by the Washington political elite made solely for the purpose of calming the low-information masses who quiver with fear until their masters pat their heads. President Barack Obama and his accomplices thought it up, only to deny their own folly and instead use their corporate media flacks to cast Obama as an innocent bystander to the Machiavellian machinations of the GOP. Fortunately for Obama, the GOP leadership has grown so jelly-spined that playing them for suckers is easier than convincing the Democrat masses that Obama’s latest course-reversal is just the President’s “evolving.”

But Obama and his cronies overplayed their hand this time around. Even casual observers recognized Obama’s poorly disguised duplicity, and the average citizens upon whom Obama’s economic cannonballs always land were too focused on basic survival amid the wreckage of Obama’s failed policies to care much about another liberal scam. And that may well be why Obama himself knocked over the shaky sequester construct.

During a speech at the Newport News, Va., naval shipyard (where they build what Obama equated with “horses and bayonets” during his final Presidential debate with Mitt Romney), Obama whined: “These cuts are wrong. They’re not smart. They’re not fair. They’re a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen.”

Just to ensure we’re all on the same page: The President of the United States, in an effort to further demonize his perceived enemies, attacked them for compromising on an idea he formulated but in which he evidently never believed, all while standing in an industrial center dedicated to building things he considers antiquated and unnecessary.

Presented with a similar knot of logical self-entanglements, I do believe the kids these days would respond simply: “Facepalm.” Nuff said.

Of The People, By The People And Against The People

As I read the article that was so blatantly planted in Saturday’s Washington Post, I couldn’t help but think: If only our good friends in Washington were as dedicated to doing something constructive with their time, such as not spending our money like drunken sailors on shore leave. I’m sure some of you missed it. Don’t think for one minute that isn’t why Ed O’Keefe’s piece, “Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales,” was buried in the least-read edition of the week.

It seems as if the Federal government has abandoned its attempts to breach the Bill of Rights’ front door and has instead decided to climb through a window. According to the story, a bipartisan group of four Senators is just a few dotted Is and crossed Ts from crafting legislation that would bar private sales of firearms without restrictions, including a background check and extensive transaction records. Those who support this sort of intrusion will suggest that these are hardly onerous stipulations. However, beyond the obvious hassle — not to mention potential identity fraud risks — of forcing Tom to conduct a Federally acceptable background check on Dick before selling him the old Security Six that was taking up space in the safe, there are some rather obvious gaps in the logic of such a law.

Like most laws that are designed to combat so-called “gun violence,” a bill regulating conduct of private sales would hardly dent the murder rate in Chicago or one of those other Democrat-run cities that has turned into a Third World war zone. Criminals don’t want law enforcement to know what they’re up to; they certainly aren’t going to tip off the Feds to the contents of their arsenal. “Hang on there, fellow gangbanger. I need you to sign off on these Federal firearms sales records before I can legally allow you to take possession of this fully automatic RPK. We may be criminals, but God forbid we break the law.” Much like every law the Feds have bolted onto the 2nd Amendment, a law restricting private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals would bounce harmlessly off the side of the criminal element.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not as laissez-faire about gun sales and ownership as some of my libertarian friends. To me, gun ownership has always been fairly commonsense. Not everyone should be allowed to own a firearm, and I don’t mean just the criminals. The guy down the street with the trashbag-covered windows and a lifetime subscription to Mother Jones probably ought to be kept away from the boomsticks, as well. But law-abiding citizens needn’t fear their neighbors simply because the Democrats tell them they should. The fact that I own multiple firearms has proven to be of no consequence to anyone, save the occasional deer, pheasant or grouse (on a really good day). Using the specter of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy to try to convince people otherwise isn’t just dishonest; it’s cruel. By the gun grabbers’ logic, I’m as dangerous as the guy down the street who wears a tinfoil hat and watches MSNBC.

So-called “gun control” laws like the one our dear Senators are hammering out are the same as any other laws that seek to abrogate the Bill of Rights (think: so-called “hate speech” laws). At their heart, they contain a nugget of mistrust. By telling me I can’t sell a .38 to my next door neighbor’s mother, the government is telling me it trusts neither my judgment nor her character. And a government of the people has no right to question those people without just cause.

–Ben Crystal

Their War On Freedom: A Deconstruction

Perhaps a bit of background is in order. The full text of the 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If only our current politicians could operate in such a straightforward manner. Yet liberals like President Barack Obama have managed to conjure up all sorts of fantastical hidden meanings in that perfectly worded statement. In the cold light of logic, however, the gun grabbers’ various arguments fracture like Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel under Congressional interrogation. Allow me to demonstrate:

Liberal argument: When the 2nd Amendment was written, “arms” referred to flintlocks and muskets.

Most famously deployed by CNN’s Piers Morgan, a disgraced British journalist-turned-game show host-turned-commentator, this bit of revisionism presumes that the Founding Fathers were incapable of understanding the march of progress and that the Constitution itself is anachronistic. The presence in Philadelphia in 1787 of more than one of the foremost minds in human history belies the former, and the liberal insistence that somehow abortion is Constitutionally protected belies the latter. At the time of the 2nd Amendment’s ratification, firearms were barely beginning to transition from man-portable artillery. The guns of the day were heavy, inaccurate and unreliable under the best of circumstances. War strategy of the day was essentially the same as it had been for the better part of human history: a fusillade of poorly aimed projectiles followed by a flat-out charge. Given the limitations of 1787-era firearms, war was still a pretty “stabby” affair. If the Framers were capable of recognizing the past in the form of swords and bayonets, they were certainly aware of the future in the form of guns and ammunition. Yet they worded the 2nd Amendment in precisely the manner they did.

Liberal argument: Civilians don’t need assault weapons.

Given the fact that “assault weapon” is, at best, a nebulous phrase that liberals seem to define as “scary-looking,” it has joined “gun violence” as a rhetorical red flag, indicating the user’s prejudice more than any legitimate debating point. And “need” is a relative thing. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or sport shooting or even personal defense as much as it is about defense against tyranny. And defense against tyranny is something for which the Founding Fathers foresaw an eternal need, hence the lack of language specifying hunting, sport shooting or personal defense. As the Framers gathered in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787, our fledgling union was just a few years removed from victory over the largest empire on the planet. Tyranny wasn’t some amorphous villain hiding on the periphery of society; it was a clear and present danger. Indeed, King George and his red-coated minions would prove as much within a generation of the American Revolution, booking their return engagement in the War of 1812. The 2nd Amendment isn’t a declaration of need; it’s an admonishment. Just because the forces of tyranny no longer answer to Buckingham Palace doesn’t mean tyranny doesn’t still exist; ask the people of the Mideast, North Korea, Red China or Chicago.

Liberal argument: Guns cause crime.

I’ve noticed this fallacious fluff tends to be the default argument for the tinfoil hat-wearing extremists of the far left. Leftist websites like Dailykos.com and Media Matters will flatly state a cause-and-effect relationship between guns and violence, although no such link exists. The most gun-restrictive places in America are also its most violent. By restricting the firearm-ownership rights of law-abiding citizens, the liberals have also left them defenseless against an onslaught of criminals who couldn’t care less what Media Matters thinks of firearm possession. Moreover, the guns-cause-crime talking point assigns sinister intent to inanimate objects. Without humans to wield them, all the firearms in the world are merely complicated boat anchors.

Liberal argument: (So-called) high-capacity magazines are unnecessary.

This feat of logical legerdemain is actually more ludicrous than the guns-cause-crime argument. The idea that my ownership of multiple 30-round magazines for my AR-15 somehow endangers others is wrong and offensive. As I pointed out, left to themselves, guns are merely busy-looking doorstops. Therefore, magazines are merely oddly shaped paperweights.

Liberal Argument: Some guns are more dangerous-looking and, therefore, should be banned.

Take a look at the picture below. One of the guns is one of the — if not the — most commonly owned rifles in North America: the Ruger 10-22. It’s a redoubtable and recognizable weapon, chambered in the easy-to-handle .22 rimfire. It features a no-frills wood stock and a detachable 10-round rotary magazine, and it looks about as frightening as a BB gun. The other depicts a sinister-looking death machine. Outfitted in black polymer, it features a pistol grip and a folding and collapsible buttstock, and it is normally shipped with a 25-round magazine. One looks like an amped-up version of a Daisy air rifle. The other looks like something that would make Morgan lose control of his bladder. The thing is: They’re the same rifle. Sure, one looks awfully “tactical,” but it’s really just “tacti-cool.” They fire the same .22 rimfire round. The magazines that work in one work just as well in the other. And neither would be a particularly good choice as a primary weapon against agents of tyranny, from King George’s redcoats to Obama’s cronies in the U.S. Senate. By focusing on cosmetic features, gun grabbers are making specious points about tangential matters rather than focusing on the actual causes of crime.

Guns

Liberal argument: A disarmed America is a peaceful Nation.

Sure it is. That’s why Nazi Germany was such a fun spot for a party. A disarmed America is a turkey on the day before Thanksgiving. It’s fat, it’s rich and it’s defenseless.

I can’t fault Obama and his Democratic accomplices for their tireless efforts to keep the so-called “gun control” debate squarely in their political crosshairs. After all, as long as they can keep if not the general public, then at least their media accomplices and the poorly informed voters on whose necks they stand focused on one of the most exceptionally divisive issues of our time, they won’t have to explain themselves regarding their wars on the energy industry, the economy, the unborn or even their own diplomatic corps. As I’ve said before: Manufactured crises are perfect tools to keep the poor, huddled, liberal masses frozen with fear and hatred, and there’s hardly a more perfectly tailored fearmongering campaign than one in which the government can use dead children to sow mistrust among the public. By turning guns into menacing killing machines, the Democratic elite can turn gun owners into menacing killers. To be sure, what sort of soulless monster would dare suggest his Constitutional rights trump the lives of our Nation’s future — other than abortionists, of course. Thusly, while proponents of the Bill of Rights defend their basic freedoms against an onslaught of righteous — albeit wrongheaded — fury, the real issues of the day, from violence to economics, disappear behind a wall of promises, demands and Vice President Joe Biden’s bizarre rape-prevention tips.

–Ben Crystal