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 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.


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

The Real War On Women

To hear the Democrats and their flacks in the kneepad media (hat tip: Brad Thor) tell it, the conservative movement is pressing a battle against the fairer sex with all the ferocity of an islamofascist who just caught sight of a woman who’s showing too much ankle outdoors. With the corporate media horde squawking the “war on women” slogan like meth-addled parakeets, one would think we should have armor-plated Mom’s Volvo, lest a roving band of glowering white men wearing Brooks Brothers ties tries to take a shot at her on her way to bridge club.

The “war on women” meme might not be borne out by actual events (unless I missed a rash of guys named “Chip” storming the cosmetics counter at Neiman Marcus), but it is perfect for the intellectual heavyweights Democrats count on to repeat it ad nauseam. “War on women” is short, it has rhythm and it fits perfectly on a bumper sticker. It’s tailor-made for the cowering liberal masses whose fear feeds the Democrat ideological machine. And it in no way hints at the reality that “war on women” translates from the original liberalese to mean “opposes late-term, third-trimester abortions.”

Casting aside the logical fallacy of “war on women” as a phrase, consider what life might be like if it were real. People could get away with virtually anything. The President might pay his women staffers 80 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Political party mouthpieces might call female politicians “c*nt” and “dumb tw*t.” People might depict female diplomats as racist caricatures. Political blogs might even attack female politicians’ children and mock their infirmities. Politically motivated mass hate groups might take to raping women at their borderline riots, and the male-dominated media might ignore it completely. Media blowholes might even take to calling their female ideological opponents “slut” or my personal favorite “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

Indeed, the safety of our precious children could hardly be guaranteed in such a gender-war-torn environment. Hopefully, they’d be well-informed by their parents and teachers about the “war on women” well before they had to step onto the battlefield themselves. Certainly, institutes of higher learning could be counted upon to impart the lessons women need to know about self-defense. I can’t imagine any respectable university instructing their female charges to “tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.” Furthermore, it strains credulity to suggest that all of the aforementioned babble might fall out of the face-holes of the same people who oppose allowing women to own firearms for self-defense.

Not only would that kind of hypocrisy be really, really dumb; it would look terrible on a bumper sticker.

–Ben Crystal

Killer Science

No one knew it was coming until it streaked overhead. Fortunately, the meteor that rocked Chelyabinsk, Russia, didn’t kill anyone. But had it cratered in the Russian city of more than 1 million souls, the death toll would have been more catastrophic than the Arab Spring.

Although the near-miss was unrelated to asteroid 2012 DA14 and the fireball seen in the skies over San Francisco on Friday, its impact reverberated across the planet. Democrat sock puppets immediately tried to link the cosmic bombardment with so-called “global warming” (aka ManBearPig) in an odd confluence of science (space rocks) and science fiction (ManBearPig) that could happen only when liberals encounter things Al Gore can’t explain in small words.

The timing of last week’s meteor shower couldn’t have been more perfect. Just days after President Barack Obama demanded taxpayer funding to combat “global warming,” science trumped science fiction. Real things like asteroids can really kill you. And they aren’t the only things out there that present a real threat to life, limb and property. What follows is a short list of a few other unlikely, but more likely than ManBearPig, natural killers:

Knife-Wielding Birds

Two years ago, Jose Luis Ochoa attended a cockfight and left in a body bag. Someone attached a blade to one of the birds’ feet, and Ochoa ended up on the business end of the chicken army’s revenge for decades of McNuggets. The next time you tuck into some KFC extra-crispy, remember the sacrifice Ochoa made so you could enjoy the finger-lickin’ goodness. And, no, I’m not sorry about Ochoa. He was at a cockfight. You’ll never see those in a red and white bucket.

Flying Crocodiles

In 2010, someone had the bright idea to smuggle a crocodile in his carry-on bag onto a Filair flight headed for Bandundu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. The croc got loose from the bag, sending panicked passengers rushing toward the flight deck and subsequently unbalancing the plane.  The crash took the lives of 20 people, but the crocodile survived.

Runaway Segways

Little more than a decade has passed since the Segway was introduced. Held up by a series of gyroscopes, the weird scooter is supposed to be almost impossible to knock off its wheels. But all the gyroscopic stabilizers in the world can’t help if the Segway is driven off a cliff. Yet that’s what happened to James Heselden.  What’s worse, Heselden was the owner of Segway Inc.  The lesson: Segways are death machines… when dropped from high altitudes.

Killer Monkeys

More than 16 million people call Delhi, India, home. One would think the deputy mayor of such a huge burg would live, if not well, at least fairly monkey-free. Yet Surinder Singh Bajwa met his end when a gang of rhesus macaques sent him flying over the balcony of his apartment. “Planet of the Apes,” the Bollywood edition?

Wiley Coyotes

In 2009, a woman was attacked and partially eaten by two coyotes while hiking in rural Nova Scotia. She’s one of only two people known to have been killed by coyotes. By the way, that’s also two more than have ever been killed by guns. Bad doggies.

Hungry Hungry Hippos

When it comes to killer animals on the dark continent, neither lions nor elephants nor cheetahs can hold a candle to these adorably plump ungulates. Despite their odd resemblance to Roseanne Barr, hippopotamuses are the No. 1 killer of people in all of Africa.  A hippopotamus can run up to 30 mph, nearly as fast as a Chevy Volt. And woe be unto the poor soul in its path; a Twinkie has a better chance of escaping Barr.

That Mother Nature packs a real wallop. All of the aforementioned are natural hazards over which we have no hope of control, except for the Segway. It’s “green,” so it kinda fits. Beyond those nightmares, we have to worry about sharks, volcanoes, lightning strikes, honey badgers, cancer and union thugs. What two things do they all have in common with asteroids?

  1. They’re all forces of nature.
  2. They all actually exist.

Yet Obama wants us to fund efforts to combat “global warming.” The Chelyabinsk meteor was a not-too-subtle reminder that science trumps science fiction every time. Honestly, when was the last time Obama demanded taxpayer funding to combat killer monkeys? The funny thing is, the monkeys are a bigger threat than “global warming,” un-wielded firearms and space rocks combined.

–Ben Crystal

Small Raise, Big Trouble

Forget everything else President Barack Obama said during the State of the Union address. Forget the unfunded education mandates, the empty promises to do something for the troops. Forget the pledge to eradicate AIDS (which not even Obama can accomplish by decree). Out of the wreckage of a speech that, I would suggest, was the worst Presidential speech since Jimmy Carter “lusted in his heart” came one demand that presents a clear and present danger: The President wants to increase the Federal minimum wage to $9 per hour from its current $7.25 per hour.

In theory, a pay hike for the bottom rung of the labor ladder sounds lovely. Stock clerks, grocery baggers and other low-skilled laborers will see an extra $1.75 for each hour of work. Across the Nation, the (primarily) youngest segment of the working population will pocket an extra $70 a week, based on a 40-hour workweek. Flush with the extra scratch, they will reinvest their hard-won extra wage in our growing economy, resulting in huge increases in face piercings, tattoos and energy drinks.

And then, just as they’re ready to move forward toward a brighter economic future, emboldened by their newfound success, reality will jump up and lift their wallets. Unfortunately, the increased outlay by their respective employers won’t be covered by income (since everyone in a position to hire low-skill labor will likewise be facing higher payroll costs — not to mention Obamacare’s higher expenses). As the economy grinds to a halt due to the cracks in the foundation caused by a Federally mandated pay raise sans increases in productivity normally associated with paycheck enlargement, one of the oldest economic laws in the world will kick in: last hired, first fired.

Small businesses that scratch their way to profitability — if that — obviously can’t afford to have their newest and least-skilled employees nab a raise with no increase in work. Neither can large corporations that employ dozens, hundreds or even thousands of minimum-wage workers. While Obama draws attention to corporate profits, he ignores corporate profit margins — often the difference between real profitability and bankruptcy. Imagine the impact an extra $1.75 per hour per employee working a 40-hour workweek would have on an employer.
While Obama might argue that an economically secure minimum-wage worker would be spurred to greater workplace accomplishments, the hard reality of minimum-wage labor belies his flight of fancy. The impact of a minimum-wage hike on small business would translate fairly quickly to larger businesses. As smaller businesses laid off workers to preserve razor-thin margins, the laid-off workers would stop spending. The sudden decrease in consumer spending would translate doubly to larger businesses, where a combination of loss of customer base would be compounded by a decline in consumer confidence. (With the new guy gone, the next guy on the ladder would get pretty nervous about his own job security.) That translates to less spending by people who have jobs, creating a dangerous cycle.

Meanwhile, there’s the small matter of the workers who have managed to secure themselves raises from the current minimum-wage to, say, $9 per hour. Congratulations to them. They busted their tails for nothing; Obama just handed the new guy a raise he didn’t earn. That’s essentially Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens translated to economics. And with that, the economy takes another hit as worker confidence declines.

Fresh from nationalizing American healthcare, Obama wants to nationalize American payrolls. And all it will cost us is $1.75 per hour — and our souls.

–Ben Crystal

Political Climate Change

Later on this evening, President Barack Obama will take to the floor of the United States House of Representatives and deliver the annual legislative, social and ideological grocery list known as the State of the Union (SOTU) address. In tonight’s speech, Obama will address myriad items which he thinks need immediate and definitive action. Among the entries on his wish list: something he refers to as “climate change.”

So, the leader of the free world will take to the most august stage on the planet; and lay out a Christmas – sorry, Kwanzaa – list of demands for the first full year of his 2nd term in the Oval Office. As per usual, none of Obama’s demands will carry a small price tag. But before we hear Obama’s plan to eliminate “climate change,” we probably ought to determine what climate change actually entails.

“Climate Change” Isn’t Its Real Name

Before they called it climate change, its proponents called it “global warming.” Before that, they called it “global cooling.” Before that, I’m guessing they called it the same thing you still call it: “weather.”

It’s Your Fault

The most appalling aspect of the whole climate change racket is the accusatory nature of the theory. While prominent liberals blame your sport-utility vehicle, your hairspray and/or your livestock for a future apocalypse, they have yet to actually prove they’re related. The supposed “science” on which they make their wild accusations is entirely anecdotal. You drive a sport-ute, use hairspray and own a cow. It’s hot outside. Therefore, you + suv + walking porterhouse = impending doom. Centuries past, Mesoamerican cultures thought solar eclipses were harbingers of destruction; anecdotally accurate to a point. Then, the Spaniards showed up and proved them really, really wrong.

It’s Hotter Out

The planet – heck, the UNIVERSE – is a constantly changing place. The planet has been dramatically warmer than it is now. Indeed, according to most historical climatological data, the Earth is currently mired in one of the coolest cycles in half a billion years. 65 million years ago, the animal kingdom was ruled by Godzilla’s cousins. But they didn’t take the dangers of unregulated dinosaur consumption seriously; and they paid for their wanton consumption by losing their global domination to proto-guinea pigs. The lesson: Paleo-climatology is an inexact science. Also: guinea pigs are bad news.

If We Don’t Do Something, We’re ALL GOING TO DIE!

Actually, it doesn’t matter what we do. The earth, and everything on it, is doomed. Billions of years from now, the Sun is going to run out of hydrogen to use as fuel. It will begin fusing helium before progressing to heavier elements. As this process intensifies, the sun will grow bigger than the sum of Al Gore and his new Al Jazeera oil barons’ bank accounts; eventually swelling large enough to consume Mercury, Venus and most of Congress. THOSE will be bad days indeed, kids. The atmosphere will burn away, the oceans will boil off, the surface of the planet will melt and Obama’s descendants will have to deliver the SOTU underground. We ARE all going to die. Not even a fully-funded Federal agency can stop it.

Forget about the heat; Google “Snowball Earth” for a look at pictures of the planet during its unruly teenage years. While liberals press their climatological phrenology on the rest of us; those aforementioned cycles continue; unaffected by our geologically unimpressive presence. Your soccer mommy-mobile didn’t cause “Snowball Earth;” nor did it cause the temperature spike which gave the dinosaurs planetary hegemony; nor will it be responsible for the Sun’s eventual self-destruction. For that matter, all of the minivans, all of the hairspray, all of the refrigerant, all of the fossil fuel usage, all of the bovine flatulence and all of the superheated air expelled from all of the lungs of all of the global warmists in history doesn’t amount to a bucket of magma.

And yet tonight, in front of a worldwide audience, Obama will demand we act to stop something he calls “climate change.” Nothing the Federal government – especially one headed by a recklessly arrogant liberal like Obama – does ever ends up costing less or being more effective than expected. Our National debt is closing in on $20 trillion. We can’t afford to pay for our proverbial groceries; much less a proverbial grocery list which includes changing the basic nature of the universe.

Join Ben tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time as he liveblogs the State of the Union address. You can comment along with Ben or take your best verbal shots at him as he employs his unique brand of humor to make sense of the festivities. To join the fun, click here.

25 Years Of Sex And Politics

It’s not that Senator Bob Menendez and his Dominican Republic juvenile jamborees are a novel concept. Heavyweight politicos have been tripping over their own — um — feet since the first time some Cro-Magnon decided to drag the cute female with the two-syllable name back to his cave. But some of the more recent dalliances with “girls Friday” have crossed the line between scandalous and enormously entertaining.

Now, I can’t possibly cover all the lawmakers who have been caught with their proverbial pants around their ankles. I eliminated some because Al Gore hadn’t invented the Internet when Thomas Jefferson slipped out the side door with Sally Hemings, others because we don’t have the bandwidth for the Kennedys. I left out still others because they’re just sad (Gary Condit and Chandra Levy), because I did a joke about them recently (Mark Sanford, hiking the Appalachian Trail) or because their sex scandal represented a small part of a much larger personal disgrace (former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick). So this list may be miles from comprehensive, but it is right next door to fun.

Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.)

Senator Gary Hart actually dared reporters to catch him stepping out during the 1988 Democratic campaign for the Presidential nomination. The girl was named Donna Rice. The boat was named Monkey Business. And the nominee was named Michael Dukakis. You can’t make this stuff up.

Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

In 1989, Representative Barney Frank’s live-in lover, Steve Gobie, was caught using “Bawney’s” digs as a brothel. Hey, we all have a few past paramours whose behavior left us regretting the association. But none of my exes ran a prostitution racket — from my living room. Feel free to insert your own “employer discount” gag here.

Senator Bob Packwood (R-Ore.)

One would think Senator Bob Packwood, who met his legislative end in the middle of President Bill Clinton’s unprecedented womanizing, need only have kept a low profile in order to keep his seat. And by “low profile,” I most certainly do not mean “bragged about his sexual conquests in his diary.” On a related note: What 63 year-old keeps a diary?

Representatives Mark Foley (R-Fla.) And Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.)

Representative Mark Foley sent sexually explicit text messages to underage Congressional pages. Foley was then replaced by Representative Tim Mahoney. Mahoney hired his mistress, fired his mistress and lost a re-election bid in a year when President Barack Obama’s coattails were longer than a union thug’s rap sheet.

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

I fly through the Minneapolis airport fairly often. I’m still a little nervous about hitting the head while waiting for my connecting flight. Gee thanks, Senator.

Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.)

Even with the corporate media trying to bury the story next to the corpse of King Richard III, Senator John Edwards’ affair — and child — with paramour Rielle Hunter crawled out. The fact that Edwards tried to pay off staffers and lied like a trial lawyer to hide his infidelities was almost as embarrassing as the fact that he did it all while his wife was dying of cancer. What do you get when you cross an ambulance-chaser with a politician? John Edwards.

Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.)

How do you know your personal failings have hit the big-time? “South Park” mocks you. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer shall forever be known by his petit nom d’amour: “Client 9.” The best part: Spitzer was replaced by his Lieutenant Governor, David Patterson, who made Spitzer look like a Cistercian nun.

Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)

This is the Congressman from New York’s 9th district. And this is the Congressman from New York’s 9th district on Twitter. Any questions?

President Bill Clinton

There’s no way I could file this piece without noting the most famous philanderer since Casanova, if not in all of human history. Clinton remains a “perv” to this day; check out the photo of Bubba giving Kelly Clarkson the twice-over at Obama’s inaugural. Sure, he followed a promising career as an alleged gubernatorial rapist by throwing himself at any White House intern with a blue dress and a weight problem; but Clinton did leave us with some parting gifts: He forced double-talking Republicans like Newt Gingrich to choke on their feigned morality, and his eight-year-long Presidential frat party relegated Al Gore to a career of chasing ManBearPig and “allegedly” pawing massage therapists.

Did I leave some out? Of course I did. The complete list of politicians who let their “little Senators” do their thinking would be as long as the Encyclopedia Britannica, albeit with unsettling photographs.

–Ben Crystal


Join Ben Tuesday night, Feb. 12, beginning at 9 p.m. Eastern time as he liveblogs the State of the Union address. You can comment along with Ben or take your verbal shots at him as he employs his unique humor to make sense of the festivities.

Straight Shooting

There I sat, frozen in fear by the realization that President Barack Obama might have lied when he claimed to be the Annie Oakley of Camp David. As usual, one of Obama’s tall tales spawned a whole new series of reports in the media, most proclaiming his latest lie too small for their attention. Others (I among them) were less concerned about whether Obama knew which end of the .12 gauge was the “business end” and more concerned about who thought allowing Obama anywhere near a loaded firearm was ever a good idea.

Thank goodness for the White House press office. While liberals blamed heartless conservatives for endlessly hounding the President out of spite and (of course) racism, the kids from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue managed to hold the President still long enough to pose for a photo featuring him awkwardly firing a presumably borrowed shotgun and turned a molehill into a mountain.

If the President’s hijinks seem too small for national discussion, that’s because they are. However, focusing on them isn’t petty; it’s a result of Obama’s seemingly reflexive tendency to lie, even when telling the truth would be easier. The logical question is: Why would Obama fan such foolish flames?

Here are but a few of the matters Obama ignored while heading to Camp David for his “shewtin’ show”:

The Mideast

Not too far off in the distant past, a belligerent islamofascist regime which not only denied the Holocaust ever happened but also hopes to start another one soon, would have been serious. Two such regimes would have been headline news every day. Two such regimes — one of them actively working to develop nuclear weapons while the other worked to eliminate a sizable portion of its own population — would have been cause for badly directed TV movies. Add Obama’s decision to send American weapons to an increasingly chaotic Egypt, and you’ve got a perfect storm brewing in the unhappiest place on Earth. Remember when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on spec?

The Economy

As of this moment, the national unemployment rate sits just shy of 8 percent; compared with the rate on the day he took office, that’s hardly the change Obama promised. The national debt is rapidly approaching $17 trillion, and the gross domestic product fell for the first time since 2009. One of those cute little bumper stickers Obama ordered affixed to liberals’ cars during the 2012 campaign read: “Bin Laden’s dead. General Motors is alive.” Thanks to Navy SEAL Team 6, bin Laden is indeed feeding the fish. But GM is more undead than alive, and the taxpayers paid 11 figures for that folly. Meanwhile, Obama is already calling for even more new taxes. The stock market is booming, so Obama’s Wall Street cronies are rolling heavy. I guess that’s where the “change” went.


For all the blather about the massacre that unfolded before the world in Libya, little has addressed what actually happened. Obama and his minions have offered (by my count) five different versions of events, ranging from a YouTube video protest to — er, they’ll get back to us on that. What we do know is that four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die, despite their warnings; and their calls for help went unheeded. We actually know more about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s headaches than we do about Benghazi, Libya. Obama offered neither a consistent nor credible explanation for Benghazi. The smart money says he never will.

Guns And Ammo

When crazy people do crazy things, Obama’s reaction is the same as liberal reaction to any tragedy: blame inanimate objects. Ever since the Newtown, Conn., massacre (which happened despite the sort of legal blanket Obama wants to throw over the rest of the Nation), Obama has the entire liberal horde marching against so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines. When someone leaves the lights on, you don’t blame the lamp. When crazy people do crazy things, you don’t blame the millions of Americans who didn’t — unless you’re Obama.

There are certainly other problems which require our collective attention. Unfortunately, Obama and his accomplices have proven to be so divisive and their minions so consumed with partisan hatred that solutions are as likely to appear as a straight answer from Attorney General and Operation Fast and Furious commander Eric Holder. But the President shoots skeet. And don’t you dare Photoshop the image of him doing so.

–Ben Crystal

Yes, Ma’am!

As of last week, the armed forces of the United States will henceforth allow women to join front-line combat units. Defense Secretary Leon “Panther” Panetta directed the military to prepare to rotate members of the fairer sex into firing position. The decision has touched off a fairly predictable firestorm of controversy, with some stating the complete gender-integration of the military was likely overdue and others saying women in combat is an idea whose time should never arrive.

I’m of two minds on the topic. While I fully understand the desire to preserve some semblance of gender roles in an increasingly confused society, I struggle to comprehend the idea that women are somehow unable to perform properly in a firefight because they’re using different plumbing. There are no ladies’ rooms “outside the wire.” And the enemy certainly doesn’t display any hesitation about, or even awareness of, gender differences when rigging improvised explosive devices or aiming B-40s at a passing convoy. Already, women go through the same training expected of any service personnel and engage in air, ground and sea combat, although their primary assignments may vary. Indeed, the lone distinction is essentially a matter of paperwork.

Not too far off in American history, integration meant including blacks in front-line combat units. Conventional wisdom of the time stated that racial integration of the armed forces posed a danger to everything from command structure to unit morale. Find former Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent and tell the men under him that he was not fit to serve with them. I strongly suggest you start running before you finish. Should you survive, try out the same logic on one of the senior officers serving under Vice Adm. Carol Pottenger. Bring your floaties.

I have encountered some people who think women lack the detachment to kill without reservation. I need only two words to gun that down: Janet Reno.

From an anecdotal perspective, with whom would you rather fend off an armed assault, much less participate in one: Sarah Palin or Dennis Kucinich? Ask that same question of some half-starved North Korean zombie or cave-dwelling Akbar who smokes hash to keep the hunger pangs at bay. Something tells me Private Jong-Sun will seriously reconsider just how badly he wants Alaska after he runs into the “Mama Grizzly.”

On the other hand, I once asked Cmdr. Dick Marcinko about women serving in combat units. If that name sounds familiar, it’s probably because he’s the bestselling author of the Rogue Warrior series of novels, and he also happens to be the founder of SEAL Team Six. This guy seriously knows his warfare. Marcinko told me he opposes women in combat not because they can’t be effective soldiers — he noted Israeli military servicewomen and Eastern Bloc snipers as examples — but because of the effect their capture might have on their own units. Marcinko worried that units might take extreme risks should a female member be captured — especially given the fact that the captors are almost routinely islamofascists who force women to dress like beekeepers, find 12 year-old girls alluring and kick back with a nice “honor killing.”

Marcinko’s point is well made. But women who enlist in the military know what they might face. To suggest that they’re unaware of the occupational hazards is to diminish their quality, and I think that’s a bit unfair. If the military — which actually tends to be ahead of the curve when it comes to integration — could learn that the only color that matters is green (or Army Combat Uniform, MARPAT or MultiCam), then I have no doubt that they can learn that the gender of their colleagues matters as little in combat as the gender of the enemy.

I am not proposing some massive social engineering experiment that uses the military as the petri dish. I just honestly believe that women can be just as effective in combat roles as men. In some cases, they might even be a little bit better. My mother is a graceful, delicate woman who makes drinking a martini look like ballet, whereas I have watched my father tear tree stumps out of the ground with his bare hands. And he does what she tells him to with the unblinking obedience of a Marine boot running into the ghost of Lt. Gen. Chesty Puller. With that in mind, imagine the reaction of a cadre of hajis confronted by a battalion that includes women with Hillary Clinton’s disposition.

–Ben Crystal

Playing 20 Questions With The Commander In Chief

Anyone who has ever sat through one of President Barack Hussein Obama’s heavy-petting sessions the corporate media call “interviews” or one of his extremely infrequent press conferences knows that wresting a straight answer from Barry is one tall order. As a conservative, I have about the same chance of scoring a sit-down with his Imperial Highness as Media Matters high priest David Brock does of silencing the voices in his head.

But what if I could interrupt one of Obama’s secret skeet-shooting sessions for a little verbal one-on-one? What questions would I pose to the most deliberately opaque President in American history? Since CBS News’ Steve Kroft has already handled the light lifting, I suppose there’s not much point in repeating the same softballs “60 Minutes” substituted for substantive sound bites.

I compiled a list of 20 questions I’d love to hear Obama answer. Of course, given his dim view of media outlets that don’t toe his statist line, I’m aware that I’m more likely to play Q&A with Obama’s auditory hallucinations and/or his little friend who totes the unregistered, semi-automatic handgun with a capacity of well more than seven rounds. But, hey: If liberals can dream of a day without liberty, then I can certainly dream of a day with a forthright President.

Thus, I would pose these interrogatives to The One, and I fully intend to do so (right about the same time Secretary of State — and Obama heir apparent — Hillary Clinton learns how to make those crocodile tears believable):

      1. Since your plan to reduce so-called “gun violence” centers on the elimination of so-called “assault weapons” instead of something that hasn’t already been proven ineffective in places like Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and Newtown, Conn., will you consider yourself responsible when so-called “gun crime” rises after you disarm the people? Or will you just stick with blaming President George W. Bush, conservatives and/or law-abiding citizens for your own ineffectiveness?

      3. I suppose you can’t really deport Piers Morgan just for being an imperious British twinkie, but can’t you sign an executive order forcing him to do his show from the Camp Lejeune rifle range? I would DVR the heck out of that show.

      5. How do members of your Secret Service detail manage to stifle their laughter when (if) you shoot skeet at Camp David?

      7. How do you Democrats reconcile being pro-abortion but anti-capital punishment? Is it just that the unborn are easier targets, or are you concerned about the death penalty’s detrimental effect on the ability of ACORN (or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves these days) to “get out the vote”?

      9. Is Eric Holder’s Spanish good enough to order lunch in Mexico, or do his narcoterrorist clients speak English?

      11. Did you let the “Benghazi Four” die because you really didn’t give a crap, or did you think you were watching “Blackhawk Down” on Air Force One’s big screen before grubbing for cash in Las Vegas?

      13. Does Hillary Clinton make little stabby gestures every time your back is turned?

      15. Since you’ve broken your promise to close Gitmo, have you considered putting in a golf course? I hear it’s lovely this time of year, and you could hit the links with some of your friends?

      17. When the Democrat Channel (aka MSNBC) minions come for a visit, how do you get those unsightly Rachel Maddow stains out of the rug in the Oval Office? Furthermore, does Al Sharpton have to fight the urge to pick up Maddow and hurl her at every teenage intern who walks by?

      19. What did fake Congressional witness Sandra Fluke have to do in exchange for the Democrats making her famous (for a little while, anyway)? Did it involve the sort of behavior Bill Clinton might enjoy? Did she charge the whole thing to Georgetown University?

      21. Is it possible to dial some of those 1-900 numbers from an Obamaphone?

      23. How come I’ve never seen your wife and Oprah Winfrey in the same room? Hang on; they’ve been in the same room. Which one was which?

      25. As or at which is Joe Biden most effective:
        a.Throw rug
        d.Guessing the number of jelly beans in the jar on your desk

      27. Do you actually enjoy hanging out with union thugs like Richard Trumka, or is that just part of the job? (Cough twice if you’re afraid to answer because they’re in the room.)

      29. According to your party and its corporate media, high gas prices were the fault of President George W. Bush during his term, but you are powerless to affect them. Does it hurt your feelings to hear your own minions say you’re impotent by comparison?

      31. Where is the “Choom gang” now, and can you hook a brother up?

      33. Have you told Malia and Sasha about the crippling national debt with which you’re saddling their generation, or will they be running for office as well?

      35. Since you lied about not hiking taxes on the middle class, can we at least get a better spot in line for the Obamacare death panels?

      37. If the Democrats successfully pass Representative Jose Serrano’s bill to eliminate the 22nd Amendment, will you personally visit the Texas Legislature to convince lawmakers to ratify it, or will you send Serrano? (If I were you, I’d send Serrano.) Also, will you still be known as “President Obama” or will you go with something cooler, like “His Most Royal and Serene Highness, Lord of All He Surveys and Ruler of the Known Universe, the Sultan Barack I?”

      39. Before he goes to bed at night, does the boogeyman check under his bed for Rahm Emanuel?

      I’m willing to acknowledge that not all of these questions are worthy of a dignified interview with the commander in chief, but neither is the current commander in chief. At the very least, I’d obviously hit the real issues a great deal harder than Kroft. Fortunately for me, I work for Personal Liberty Digest™, not some bush-league liberal hack farm like “60 Minutes.”

      –Ben Crystal

Life Comes Last

If half a million people march for life on Washington, D.C., and the media pretend not to hear them, did they still make a statement in defense of the unborn? Ask the corporate media flacks and their Democratic overlords, and I’m quite sure they’d respond: “Did you hear about the college football player and his fake girlfriend?”

A half million citizens did shake down the thunder in our Nation’s Capitol this past weekend; and the media did ignore their roar, opting instead for incisive coverage of a linebacker’s love life. In fact, the March for Life — which managed to draw a crowd more than five times the size of a sold-out Notre Dame home game without any of the criminal hijinks or mountains of litter of a liberal get-together — fell behind not only Manti Te’o’s heartbreak on the information superhighway but also behind a comparatively meager get-together of anti-2nd Amendment activists.

Now, pointing out that the corporate media list badly to port is as groundbreaking an observation as noting Bill Clinton likes chunky gals. But there’s a difference between allowing your biases to bend your coverage and letting them delete it entirely. Liberals will stop traffic to preserve access, especially taxpayer-subsidized access, to abortion; ask anyone who has ever witnessed those creepy vagina costumes.

Half a million Americans stood together and stood up to be heard on behalf of the voiceless. Their collective shout dwarfed even the racket made by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers booing Representative Paul Ryan on Inauguration Day. Their force of will radiated more powerfully than a diva lip-syncing “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Yet the people charged with informing Americans of important goings-on paid more attention to a few dozen people wailing plaintively against something called “assault weapons” and something else they refer to as “gun violence.” Moreover, they updated us on Te’o’s sad tale — again. I’m sure they aren’t keeping that sideshow on life support just to keep from noticing the crowd as large as a medium-sized city down the street, demanding protection for the innocent.

To be fair, some corporate media types did take note of the March for Life. One of the bit players for the Democrat Channel (MSNBC) managed to work in some material about the march. A fellow who calls himself “Touré’” (like Prince, except that Touré is “The Artist Formerly Known As No One Special”), in discussing the march, crowed: “I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me.” I suspect God doesn’t want the credit for that, buddy. Indeed, I suspect God doesn’t want credit for you, either. You could have tried stepping up as a man and taking responsibility for your behavior. For that matter, you could have avoided the whole mess by behaving responsibly from the moment you realized she was unconscious. (I’m guessing at that last part.) Call it a hunch. No matter; at least Touré’s pro-abortion parable stems from his own lack of compunction.

I prefer that to the usual liberal efforts to present the extermination of the most innocent among us as a minor elective procedure. Senator Barbara Boxer (Butcher-Calif.) calls abortion a “health decision.” The circumstances in which pregnancy presents an actual threat to the mother’s life are exceedingly rare. The rest of the time, the “women’s health issue” is just a matter of convenience. Democrats like to frighten their masses with claims of some conservative “war on women.” Of course, anyone fighting to protect defenseless babies must be consumed with misogyny. And pro-life women are beyond the pale; just ask Sarah Palin.

There were other Democrats paying attention to the March for Life. The Twitterverse ran hot with their rage:




I’ll bet other pro-abortionists would excuse their threats as support for really, really late-term abortion.

In recent days, the scientific world has been riveted by the likelihood that life may have — and may yet — exist on Mars. Though that life is probably merely microbial in nature, astronomers are as excited by the possibility as Touré is by a “drunken lingerie lock-in” at a sorority house. Yet the media have focused far more attention on Martian bacteria than human children — and on Te’o’s fake girlfriend, of course.

–Ben Crystal

The Divine Right Of Obama

I watched the coronation — sorry; inauguration — of Emperor Barack the Magnificent I — sorry; President Barack (don’t say “Hussein”) Obama. As he recited the oath of office for the second time in as many days (he took the “official” oath in the Oval Office on Sunday), a light switched on. At first, I thought it might just be the camera lights reflecting off of that fright wig stuck to the first lady’s cranium. But the light was actually a revelation, one much greater than the knowledge that Obama should put that thing back before the janitor notices it’s missing. Obama, who has made it clear that he thinks as highly of the Constitution as I do of The New York Times, placed his hand on not one but two copies of the Bible — one belonging to Martin Luther King Jr. and the other belonging to President Abraham Lincoln.

Obama — who believes he can overrule the 2nd Amendment by what amounts to imperial fiat; Obama, who endorsed Attorney General Eric Holder before, during and after Holder’s criminal mendacity regarding Operation Fast and Furious; Obama, whose nationalization of the Nation’s health held down the Interstate Commerce Clause and beat the justice out of it; Obama, who brazenly lied (and still lies) to the country about the Benghazi, Libya, massacre — literally swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” on an actual stack of Bibles. The arrogance to do so with a straight face, despite it being an affront to Nation, office and Almighty God, sets the bar at a whole new level. He even “tweeted” while in church… really.

What sort of person can so easily lie, not to mention blaspheme like the little kid in “The Exorcist”? I’m aware that many of you believe Obama is a Muslim. I doubt it. Others may believe he is a Christian. Not bloody likely. Others still may consider him a fairly typical American “Christmas and Easter” type. You’re all off the mark. Before you firebomb Bob Livingston’s in-box with demands that he replace me with “The Wizard of Id,” hear me out: the Obama I watched on Monday with his hand on two copies of a book by which he does not abide, swearing an oath in which he does not believe, is a spiritual man. And he attends Mass every single day. Indeed, he holds to his holy strictures with the devotion of a Trappist monk. His temple attracts millions of believers: The First (and Only) Church of Barack Hussein Obama.

He floated through the oath with such ease; it was almost enough to keep us from noticing that Beyonce lip-synched the national anthem. He thrilled the assembled throng with his plans for the coming years, including more debt, more war and less of something he referred to as “climate change.” I believe that might be the current moniker for the hoax formerly known as “global warming” and even more formerly known as “global cooling,” although normal people just call it “weather.” He demanded an end to partisanship, “We cannot… treat name-calling as reasoned debate,” while his minions booed Representative Paul Ryan. And he even worked in some material about a new dedication to immigration amnesty, which will probably grant citizenship to every Tomas, Diego and Javier south of the Rio Grande.

Only a man with absolutely no regard for the Bible and the Constitution could treat them both so shabbily. Only a man with absolute faith in himself could immediately turn to his minions and murder the truth so casually. And only a congregation mostly comprised of people who have either abandoned or forgotten the lessons of both of the aforementioned texts could cheer him on.

Hey, I can’t blame the guy for reveling in his own myth. I’m man enough to admit that if I’d gone through life so rarely hearing the word “no,” I might not have turned out so fabulously. I do blame him for forgetting the difference between fact and fantasy. And I do blame his supporters for attacking me for pointing out the difference.

The liberal deification of Obama violates not only the 1st Amendment, but the first commandment. We don’t recognize a monarch in this country. We don’t have a national deity either — ask any liberal, if you can get him to stop whining about prayer in schools long enough to listen. The man I saw take the oath of office believes he’s both.

Aiming For Failure

Last week, while America was reeling from President Barack Obama and his Democratic accomplices’ increasingly ugly war on the Bill of Rights, one of Obama’s ugliest cheerleaders — Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina — sent an email to the Democratic horde. Messina is the dough-faced creep who starred in the “For All” meme which, I presume, was intended to frighten parents into voting for Obama in exchange for people like Messina staying away from their children. Given his history, I would have guessed most of Messina’s emails concern cats dressed up like people or the best places to meet unattended kids. However, this one addressed the recent Democratic attempts to divert attention away from Obama’s exploitation of children to sell his new plan to disarm law-abiding Americans.

In the electronic missive in question, Messina wrote:

Friend — Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to protect our children and our communities by helping reduce gun violence. We won’t stop every violent act like the one in Newtown, Connecticut.

Just a month after the Newtown massacre, which occurred despite precisely the sort of firearm restrictions Obama wants to impose upon the rest of us, and just days after Obama signed his oath- and Constitution-violating executive orders (behind a wall of yet more defenseless tots), one of his top lieutenants admitted that Obama’s plan is about as likely to work as a sizable number of his voters. Rats! And here I was so excited about the prospects of an America free from the specter of crazy people who do crazy things. It’s a bit of a shame that the Obama Administration doesn’t seem to share my enthusiasm.

But wait. If it’s already acknowledging that Obama’s grand gun-grab gambit screams “Epic fail!” as loudly as Joe Biden debating anything smarter than my Labrador retriever (who still gets good odds), then what was the point of the exercise? In an effort to stop so-called “gun violence,” Obama came up with a program that not only won’t work, but has split the Nation like a wishbone. Who else is glad to know these clowns are on the case? Pardon me for daring to question his Imperial Highness, but if you know your plan is nothing more than a thinly disguised abrogation of the Bill of Rights and will be as effective in stopping so-called “gun violence” as an Atlanta sports team is in winning when it counts, then you need to run a different play.

Obama’s minions got away with Operation Fast and Furious. They got away with Benghazi, Libya. They got away with Solyndra, “Government” Motors and the host of scandals and crimes that have defined Obama’s tenure. I remain aghast that none of Obama’s retinue of circus freaks and goose-stepper wannabes will spend the next 10 to 15 years living out Messina’s secret fantasies in the shower room at Leavenworth. But did they really think they would get away with a frontal assault on a group of people who not only recognize the authority of the Constitution, but are willing to defend it by precisely the means it affords them? What’s more, Obama’s attempts to implement his fascist vision have backfired. Gun sales have leapt into the stratosphere. Some magazine manufacturers have suspended the acceptance of new orders in order to deal with a mounting backlog.

Obama took national heartbreak and tried to exploit it — and any unattended children within reach — into a blitz on the Bill of Rights. As usual, his nefarious plan blew up in his face. He’ll survive this latest blunder; his arrogance and the blind obedience required of all liberals providing him with a shield. But his constant barrage of lies, failures and outright disgraces will eventually exact a toll. Of course, the Democrats won’t pay it; they’ll bill it to us. I can’t speak for the rest of you, but I’m all tapped out. All I have left are my freedom and my firearms. I’d recommend they avoid sending Messina to my door to collect.

–Ben Crystal