New York Times: Throw Off Bondage of ‘Evil’ Constitution

The biggest liberal newspaper in the country has printed a column from a top progressive scholar calling on the American people to ignore the Constitution with its “evil provisions,” revealing the far-left agenda for what it is and making sense of several major actions of the Obama administration.

Those who love liberty and our Constitution need to speak up and be heard. The Constitution is the cornerstone of the United States of America as a nation. It holds us together, gives us our national identity, and is the surest safeguard against an all-powerful government.

That is why every officer of federal and state government must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution before they can assume the powers of their office. Every military officer must swear to support the Constitution, including the words “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

And every lawyer—as an officer of the courts—takes an oath to support the Constitution. I have taken such an oath ten times in my career, including one standing before the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

So did Professor Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown, but now he evidently thinks taking such an oath was a mistake. In a New York Times column, he calls for America to free itself of “bondage” to the Constitution. Speaking of what’s wrong in the country today, he laments that “no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

Looking through American history, Seidman claims that “flagrant disregard of the Constitution [has] helped us to grow and prosper.” He lauds governmental systems like Great Britain that have parliamentary supremacy, where the government can vote to do absolutely anything it wants. This is precisely the form of government we rejected when we revolted against Britain and declared independence in 1776. Perhaps Seidman thinks the American Revolution was a mistake.

Read more here.

The UGLY face of New York Times readers

Good grief, the readership of the NYT are outright frightening. Looking through the comments on its coverage of Romney’s speech in Jerusalem is an eye opener. A sample:

– It is more than deplorable to see AIPAC’s control of Congress and the WH. In countries that do not have an AIPAC-equivalent , the legislatures are free to use critical thinking to reflect on history. The rest of the world needs only common sense to see & understand who are the foreigners, colonizers, land stealers , ethnic cleansers and brutal occupiers versus who are the indigenous people who have been forced from THEIR land (750,000 from 425 villages &12 urban centers in 1948 alone, all against the tenets of the UN Res #181) or to live gasping under the oppressive Zionist boot….

– Romney is an empty vessel, currently being filled with sludge by the same group of neo-cons who got us into Iraq: same fears, same rhetoric, same tactics …and, potentially, the same result.

– Sheldon Adelson’s money is working, at the detriment of American interests. Next will be Americans dying for Israel. If Romney is elected Iran bombing is guaranteed.

– The US should not ever lift a finger to help Israel for reasons well known to all.

– The speech must have been written by Bibi and edited by Sheldon Adelson. This rhetoric will only serve to further Israel’s isolation at a time when it should be reaching out to its neighbors.

– Our support for Israel is the reason Al Qaeda and other Extremists have targeted America and Americans , so what do Politicians do vow even more support for Israel .

– Just what we need, a pip-squeak, unstable middle east nation running our foreign policy. Israel has managed to alienate all its neighbors and half its own population. There are much better nations to follow if we feel we cannot lead. On foreign policy Romney is nothing less than a menace.

– I can’t believe I’m writing this but I’m beginning to sympathize with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Willard: next time you decide to go abroad please remember to take your ventriloquist with you.

– Iran will eventually build or acquire a nuclear weapon (if they haven’t already) and oh my god here’s what will happen: NOTHING.

This is what liberalism has wrought. Fools who think themselves informed. Useful idiots, indeed. It’s impossible to read too many comments as they are just so terrifying.

Proof! Establishment media controlled

There was a rather low-key confession made in the New York Times last week that deserves to be blared throughout this country so that every American understands what they are reading in the establishment’s ultra-controlled, government-managed “press” – and I use that last word loosely indeed.

The admission came in the form of a story by Jeremy Peters on the politics page of the Times July 16. I’ve been waiting for others to point it out, discuss it, debate it, express shock and exasperation over it. But I’ve waited for naught.

What this shocking story reveals is that even I – one of the kingpins of the new media and a refugee from the state-controlled spin machine – underestimated the utter and total corruption of the euphemistically called “mainstream press.”

It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, “correction” and approval before it reaches the American people!

Here are some key excerpts from the piece, if you think I’m exaggerating:

“The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”

“They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”

“Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”

“Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”

“Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”

“Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”

“From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”

“Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”

“It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”

I could go on and on. I urge you to read the entire story. This may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years.

Read more here.

Today’s PC police would arrest Abe Lincoln for sedition

By: Douglas MacKinnon

During his first inaugural address in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously but inaccurately claimed that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Leaving aside the fact that 77 years later, many of Roosevelt’s socialist leanings serve as a roadmap for President Obama, the inescapable reality of 2010 is that the only thing we have to fear is political unaccountability, an unethical media, liberal judicial activists, and those among us who want and demand something for nothing.

If you are a citizen who still believes in traditional values and the need for a free, strong and secure America, then it’s well past the time to make your voice heard.

At the risk of being accused of inciting sedition by ultra-wealthy, far-left “journalist” Joe Klein, I would stress if not now, when? If not you, who?

As an aside to Klein, who apparently, as he runs around purposely twisting the words of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, by claiming they come “dangerously close to incitement to violence,” has never read the writings of well-known seditionists Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

To that very point, Lincoln once said, “this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Sacrilege. Had Lincoln uttered those very words today, Klein, the editorial board of The New York Times, and the inhabitants of the West Wing would have called for his imprisonment.

More than imprisonment, all but confirmed Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan would have stated Lincoln’s belief deserved no First Amendment protection.

That assumption being based on the liberal Kagan’s own words who has chillingly said in the past, “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

While Chief Justice Roberts called Kagan’s argument “startling and dangerous,” the mainstream media has done all in its power to keep this totalitarian declaration from the American people.

Beyond liberal judicial activism and the propagandists for the far-left in the media, our welfare, security, and very existence are being threatened by elected officials from both sides of the aisle who see the rapidly descending blade and purposefully ignore it as they suicidally focus on their own selfish needs.

Were it not for the fact they are about to take the rest of us with them, their extinction would be a welcome relief.

To ensure the demise of our once great nation, we are also being assaulted by an unimaginable and lethal U.S. debt combined with the out-of-control salaries and pensions of local, state, and federal employees and the unions who seek to protect and grow that money at any cost.

As one county employee in Maryland recently told me, “As long as I get mine, I honestly don’t care about the rest of the country.”

While we all now recognize that Los Angeles and California are the Athens and Greece of the United States, we need to understand that they are but the poster children for what is about to befall us.

On a recent trip to Miami, I was disturbed but not shocked to find out that while the median income for the hardworking citizens of that city is about $26,000, the median income of the city employees is about $76,000. Triple that of those who pay their salaries.

Worse, thanks to union threats and liberal leaders, almost 100 city workers in that all but bankrupt city “earned” over $200,000. Can you say “unsustainable?”

Roosevelt was wrong, as are all today who believe in something for nothing. It’s not fear we have to worry about.

It’s the minority among us who deliberately steal, lie, brainwash our children, and leave our borders and nation unprotected, that we have to not only shield ourselves from, but defeat before it’s too late.

That is the calling for the majority. Let us hope it does not fall on deaf or compromised ears.

Oliver North: Indisputable service

By: Oliver North
Examiner Columnist

This year falling on May 15, Armed Forces Day was designated in 1949 to recognize active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines. Memorial Day, now a “nearest Monday” federal holiday, has been observed at the end of the month since 1868 in tribute to America’s war dead. It’s ironic that this year, these two dates celebrating those who serve in our nation’s uniform are bookends for a political candidate accused of inflating his claims of military service.

On May 17, The New York Times, The Associated Press and just about every other news outlet on the planet made it known that Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, has made a habit of portraying himself as a veteran of the Vietnam War. He is quoted as having told a Connecticut veterans group in March 2008, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.” At a Veterans Day event later that year, he said, “I wore the uniform in Vietnam, and many came back to all kinds of disrespect.” He has emotionally recalled being “spat on” and claimed, “We couldn’t wear our uniforms (when) we returned from Vietnam.” On other occasions, he apparently has reflected on “the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse” he suffered after coming back from Vietnam. At a 2003 rally of support for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” and he often has made reference to “the days that (he) served in Vietnam.” Unfortunately, none of this is true. Jane Fonda has more time on the ground in Vietnam than Blumenthal.

Confronted by the evidence that he never really was deployed overseas, the Senate candidate called a news conference to say, “I regret that I misspoke on those occasions. I take full responsibility.” He went on to explain to reporters that his claims to have served in Vietnam were “absolutely unintentional” and “a few misplaced words.” That affront to those who really did serve — and who now serve in harm’s way — was apparently acceptable to those who stood beside the attorney general in his Mark Sanford moment.

In fairness, Blumenthal did enlist in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1970 — after receiving at least five draft deferments. He apparently made it through Marine boot camp at Parris Island, S.C. — no mean feat. The publicly available record shows that after completing basic training, he never deployed overseas, but he did fulfill his obligated service in a Washington, D.C.-based Civil Affairs detachment and a Motor Transport unit in Connecticut. That entitles him to wear the same Eagle, Globe and Anchor that adorns my uniform. But that doesn’t give him the right to demean the service of the young Marines and Navy corpsmen with whom I served in that long-ago, faraway war — or those from the present fight who have volunteered to go in harm’s way.

Blumenthal’s lies about his service aren’t simply a problem of “misspeaking,” as he now claims, or just a matter of padding a r?sum?. His deceptions and distortions had but one self-serving end: to advance his political career by establishing affinity with veterans and their families, no matter what price they had really paid. Apparently, he was so good at it until now that no political opponent, veterans organization or enterprising reporter ever analyzed Blumenthal’s DD Form 214 or his Service Record Book to determine the truth of his assertions.

Blumenthal now maintains he isn’t going to talk about this matter anymore and is moving on to “issues that make a difference now and in the future to the people of Connecticut.” Whether “moving on” and “putting this behind us” will prove to be a successful political ploy remains to be seen. In the 1990s, then-Rep. Wes Cooley, R-Ore., who falsely claimed he had served in the Korean War, was thrown out of office by his constituents after being caught up in his lies. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., resigned this week when his extramarital affair was revealed. These men are no greater charlatans or frauds than Blumenthal, who must know that others — such as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa — have survived self-serving “expansions” of their own military records.

Blumenthal says he is going to continue his quest for the U.S. Senate, so the issue of his credibility and his “war record” ultimately will be decided by the people of Connecticut. It will be interesting to see whether the state that gave us Revolutionary War heroes Nathan Hale and Israel Putnam wants to seat a hypocrite like Richard Blumenthal in the U.S. Senate with a real American hero like Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.

That’s all ahead for the nice folks in the Nutmeg State. For the rest of us, please remember that Memorial Day is more than a day off. It’s our opportunity to honor those who indisputably served our country in harm’s way. They are buried in cemeteries all over this globe — including one near you.

Examiner columnist Oliver North is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Blumenthal and the Liars’ Party

By Bruce Walker

Richard Blumenthal served in Vietnam — or at least he told the American people that he did. According to people who know Blumenthal, his war record grew over the years. That hapless tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the New York Times, found no less than eight articles between 2003 and 2009 in which Blumenthal spoke of his service in Vietnam. Now, it seems, the Connecticut Democrat politician did not serve in Vietnam at all. In fact, Blumenthal took extraordinary steps to avoid service in Vietnam.

Lying about military service is bad, but what Blumenthal said in response to the New York Times story is uglier. In damage control mode, Blumenthal whined, “On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to my country.” Blumenthal, of course, did not “misspeak.” He did more than lie about his military service: He lied about lying. This is a special moral pathology of the left.

Think John Edwards, the man whom Democrats wished to be our vice president, the man who might have won the presidency in 2012. In October 2007, when confronted with allegations that he had had an affair with Rielle Hunter, Edwards said, “The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous.” In July 2008, Edwards admitted to having an affair with Hunter, but denied paternity of a love child with her, offering to take a paternity test. One of his staffers, Andrew Young, a married man with three children, said that he fathered Hunter’s child. When confronted with a photo showing Edwards holding Hunter’s baby, Edwards said “I don’t know anything about the photograph; I don’t know who that baby is.” Then in January 2010, Edwards admitted to having fathered Francis Quinn Hunter with Rielle Hunter. Edwards denied the truth at every turn and attacked those who spoke the truth. The John Edwards story is not about marital infidelity. It is the surreal tale of pathological lying.

What would it have been like to have a pathological liar like Edwards in the White House? We need not guess; we know. On January 26, 1998, an angry Bill Clinton addressed the rumors of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He looked straight into the television camera and said, “I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m not going to say it again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.” Clinton might have admitted the affair. He might have dodged the issue. He chose neither course. Instead, Clinton issued an adamant, clear statement denying his dishonesty and compounding his lies.

These lies of Blumenthal, Edwards, and Clinton are not the sort of lies usually bandied about in political battles. Their lies were not lies about health care, Iraq, global warming, unemployment rates, or any of the accepted free fire zones of partisan rhetoric. Honest people can differ on these sorts of issues. Indeed, arguments about these issues are the very stuff of political debates. The lies of Blumenthal, Edwards, and Clinton did not involve ideology or policy at all. Clinton was, as Bob Kerry once advised, a “very good liar” on policy matters, but that is something different. The lies of these four Democrats were wholly personal and self-serving.

The lies smell like John Kerry’s repeated statements over many years about his service in Indochina, in which he claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia under Nixon (October 14, 1979); that he was on a gunboat in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 (March 27, 1986); that upon orders, he took his swift boat in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 (1992 AP story); and that he executed combat missions into Cambodia (May 2000). John Kerry never fought in Cambodia at all. Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968.

Was this just a mistake? Was Kerry’s memory at fault? Kerry himself said that this 1968 Christmas in Cambodia was “seared in his memory.” How did Kerry respond to being caught in blatant lies about his military service? His operatives coined the term “swift-boating” as a pejorative for those who destroy reputations by defamation — even though what these veterans stated was true.

There is a pattern to this misbehavior. Blumenthal, Edwards, Clinton, and Kerry lied about their personal lives, hiding sins or inventing heroism. Each man was very specific in his false statements. All four of these men were lawyers, and three out of four were married to lawyers. Two of the four — Clinton and Blumenthal — were chosen as Attorney General for their home states, a position that should be held by scrupulously honest men.

All of these four lying Democrats are leftists. None of the four admitted their lies until they were caught. Even then, all four used lawyerly weasel words to cloud their clear dishonesty and attack those who discovered their lies. Is it worth noting that three of these four — Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards — were chosen by Democrats to run on their national ticket? Does it mean something that Blumenthal was intended to fill the seat of Chris Dodd, another leftist Democrat lawyer who was up to his neck in unethical behavior? Serial liars like these men are quickly known to their colleagues and co-partisans. That fact speaks as much to the party whose standard they bear as it does to the liars themselves. Which party? The Liars’ Party.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.