Why I oppose John Kerry

If President Obama truly believes John Kerry can elude his Swift Boat history, he is most likely only deluding himself.

Watching Barack Obama nominate John Kerry to be secretary of state serves as a reminder the radical leftist activists that have hijacked leadership in the Democratic Party continue to operate from an anti-American consciousness that dawned in the late-1960s, condemning the United States, much as did hard-core communists at the time, as an imperialistic military power advancing colonialist aims.

The young John Kerry who condemned the U.S. military in his infamous 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has much in common with the young Barack Obama who expressed admiration for Franz Fanon and Malcolm X when expressing in the pages of his autobiography his particular form of anti-colonial black rage against the United States of America.

Now, with an appointment ceremony Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not attend in her continuing effort to dodge being forced to give sworn testimony before Congress regarding her role in the Benghazi attack that cost the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, President Obama has placed John Kerry fourth in the line of presidential succession – after the vice president, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate.

John O’Neill, my co-author in writing the 2004 best-seller “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” has expressed via email that an illness prevents him from taking an active role reorganizing Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth to oppose Kerry’s nomination.

Yet, recently, O’Neill made clear he was very opposed to Kerry’s nomination, as was noted in a recent opinion piece authored in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 6 by Seth Lipsky, a former member of the Journal’s editorial board, entitled “John Kerry, Secretary of What?”

Read more here.

Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers: The Left Must Utilize Its ‘Absolute Access’ to America’s Classrooms

Gabriel Sherman: ‘Jayson Blair on Steroids’

“Gabe Sherman is Jayson Blair on steroids.” That’s one tough assessment of Gabriel Sherman, the over-eager reporter and from-a-great-distance biographer of Roger Ailes. Who said it? A well-placed source close to Fox News. And the source makes a very strong case.

Jayson Blair, of course, was the serially dishonest reporter for The New York Times who was fired, finally, in 2003.

Today, in the opinion of many, Sherman is following in Blair’s disastrous and disgraced footsteps. On December 17, under the headline, “Rupert Murdoch Wants Stricter Gun Laws After Newtown, But Fox News Doesn’t Get the Memo,” Sherman falsely claimed that Fox News had put out an “edict” against discussions of gun control in the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting. The next day, Sherman’s claim was knocked down here at Breitbart.com, among other news outfits.

Now, having been nailed for his incorrect story, Sherman is currently scrambling to save his reputation by enlisting his Fox-phobic allies in the MSM.

But first, a little background on the December 17 piece, as well as some insight into its author, from the source close to Fox. In that piece, Sherman asserted that a “rift” had opened inside the News Corporation, parent company of Fox News. He declared that News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch favored more gun control, while Fox News–and by implication, Fox chief Ailes–was opposed. But that’s baloney, says the plugged-in Fox source:

Read more here.

UNHINGED Code Pink Kook Crashes NRA Presser

Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ Because He Represents ‘New, Stupid America’

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has slammed Time magazine’s selection of President Barack Obama for the 2012 “Person of the Year” award when he charged on Wednesday and Thursday that the Democratic incumbent was re-elected because he appealed to “low-information morons” who make up a new demographic in the nation.

On Wednesday’s syndicated program, Limbaugh responded to the announcement made that morning on NBC’s “Today Show” by stating that Richard Stengel, the editor of the liberal publication, said Obama was chosen “because he is a symbol, the champion, of the new low-information American voter.”

While explaining why the president was selected, Stengel said:

He won reelection despite a higher unemployment rate than anybody’s had to face in 70 years. He’s the first Democrat to actually win two consecutive terms with over 50 percent of the vote. That’s something we haven’t seen since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And he’s basically the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of.

Limbaugh also indicated that Stengel said “15 percent of voters actually don’t care about politics. These are the people we didn’t know who are gonna show up at the polls who actually like Barack Obama, in the sense they feel like he’s outside of politics.”

The radio host then described Time as a “failing magazine with a dwindling subscription and a dwindling advertiser base that’s no longer relevant in the media world” but “still holds onto this Man of the Year thing.”

Read more here.

New York Gov: Gun Confiscation and Forced Buy-back an Option

New York governor Andrew Cuomo says the state of New York is serious about gun confiscation. The Democrat and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told an Albany radio station he plans to propose a package of draconian legislation during his Sate of the State address next month.

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

Cuomo’s confiscation scheme follows remarks by liberal members of the establishment media who demand the government seize firearms from law-abiding citizens. Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz tweeted in favor of gun confiscation.

“We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,” said CNN’s Don Lemon following the Sandy Hook massacre. “They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children.”

Anti-Second Amendment advocates have attacked gun ownership from a number of angles. On Thursday, anti-gun zealot and filmmaker Michael Moore said the desire to own firearms and support the Second Amendment is tied to racism.

Read more here.

A ‘what if’ gun-seizure scenario

President Obama today issued a sweeping executive order banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all semi-automatic firearms in the U.S.

Obama cited for his authority for the action a national state of emergency that has been in effect ever since Sept. 11, 2001, and renewed annually by both President George W. Bush and Obama ever since. He also cited portions of the Patriot Act that suspend certain civil rights that remain classified.

The dramatic action by the president follows closely on the heels of the Newtown, Conn., massacre of 27 schoolchildren and teachers by Adam Lanza a week ago.

Gun-control advocates have been pushing for tighter gun control ever since the attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the fourth mass shooting in the U.S. in 2012.

Yet the action was surprising because Obama vowed to present a detailed plan of action in January after naming Vice President Joe Biden to head a blue-ribbon panel including Cabinet members, law enforcement officials and various agencies of the government. Biden convened the first meeting of the panel only yesterday.

That’s how quickly it could happen.

That’s how liberty could be lost in America in one day.

For many, today was the day the world was supposed to end, according to the Mayan calendar and other ancient documents.

It didn’t, of course. But a scenario like the above would certainly change the world in an instant. The last great hope for mankind and freedom could be turned upside-down in the name of national security and safety.

Americans would no longer be the masters of their government, as the founders intended. They would become subjects of their government, as most people in the world have been since the beginning of time.

It might seem implausible, unthinkable, far-fetched – even un-American and, of course, unconstitutional – but has anything like that that ever stopped Barack Obama before?

Am I suggesting this will happen?


Am I suggesting it could happen?


And that’s why I am putting it out there for the American people.

We are very, very close to seeing some draconian action in Washington on this specific action – the unalienable freedom that secures all the rest of our constitutionally guarded liberties.

It may come in a more conventional form – with some legislators who formerly supported gun rights – yielding to the political winds and media distortion sweeping the country.

But it might also happen in an unconventional and unexpected form – with an executive order. You might recall how Paul Begala, a top political adviser to former President Bill Clinton described executive orders: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”

Obama wouldn’t be the first president to do an end-run around Congress to “make law.”

If I’m not scaring you yet, consider this: I am writing this column just minutes after getting a call from someone whose job it is to seek out reliable intelligence reports to protect people in the event of catastrophic events. He, in turn, had just talked to someone he described as a very reliable source who had worked in government and in the arms industry who had this normally calm, collected former military officer in a state of near panic because he was told this action could be announced today.

Read more here.

Official: Obama Will Nominate John Kerry to Be Secretary of State

A senior administration official says President Barack Obama on Friday will nominate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as his next secretary of state.

Kerry’s nomination marks Obama’s first move in a sweeping overhaul of his national security team heading into a second term.

If confirmed, Kerry will take the helm at the State Department from outgoing Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Massachusetts senator is expected to be easily approved for the Cabinet post by his longtime Capitol Hill colleagues.

Kerry leapt to the front of Obama’s list for the State Department job after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration last week.

The official requested anonymity in order to discuss the announcement ahead of Obama.