Israel’s “Intellectual Warriors”- Via Israel Institute For Strategic Studies – Must URGENTLY Go Forth To “Battle”…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Before the rebirth (in 1948) of the modern state of Israel a battle raged all over the world, as various flavors of anti-Zionists/anti-semites railed against the notion, the very existence, of a Jewish State. It is ongoing, even as this is being written. Leave aside said temerity to dictate to the Jewish people that they have no “right” to their thousands yr old homeland. The question still remains: how perverse is it for so called “intellectual elitists” to expect that the Jewish people bow to their demands? Who died, anointing them masters of the universe? 

In tandem, anti-Jewish Jews are generally featured – front and center – as the purveyors of said poison pill, and their flaunting is not for nothing. On one hand, they are used as the useful idiots that they are. On the other side of the spectrum, many offer themselves up as a sampling of “good Jews“, you know, those who do the bidding of their (leftist) Gentile and Islamic overlords.

But their deviant behavior becomes somewhat explicable, only when certain derivatives come to the fore. Specifically, leftism is lethal to Jews, yet they are (mentally) immutable to its consequences –

Consequentially, what else but disaster can one expect when mega-rich, or other highly connected individuals get bitten by the “peace” bug? – Its results are always detrimental to the Jewish nation/people. But never mind…they soldier on.

Whereas the above links cover Jewish dementia, the remaining- who oppose Israel (Judea and Samaria) as the cradle of Judaism – comprise a hodgepodge of leftists hewing to their “religious” dogma, irrespective of their actual religion or locale –

In this regard, The New York Times, via their toadying Jew-boys, and like-minded Israel-haters have ratcheted up their vitriol. This is no small matter. Israel’s foremost (strategic) “intellectual warrior”, Dr. Martin Sherman, addresses said venomous onslaught and he is more than up to the challenge – . The following is one sampling, out of countless others.

‘Into the Fray: ‘The New York Times’ versus the Jews’


Over the last fortnight, the so-called “paper of record” has ratcheted up its bias and bile a notch or two.

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state.
– Joseph Levine, “On Questioning the Jewish State,”The New York Times, March 9, 2013

There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
— George Orwell

Last week I cautioned that a crucial intellectual battle has been launched to strip the Jews of their political independence and national sovereignty. As promised, in this week’s column I will elaborate on the inanity and iniquity of this Judeophobic initiative.

Pernicious, perverse, paradoxical

The Times – together with several other major mainstream media entities – has chosen to throw its weight decisively behind this patently pernicious, perverse and paradoxical endeavor.

But over the last fortnight, the so-called “paper of record” has ratcheted up its bias and bile a notch or two. This prompted the following comment from Commentary’s Seth Mandel in his “A New Low for the Times” (March 18): “The bias against Israel in the press, and especially the New York Times, has become so steady and predictable that it can be difficult to muster outrage.

Since the paper flaunts, rather than attempts to disguise, its hostility to Israel, it can be easy to miss when the Times crosses yet another line. And the paper and its editors have done so again this weekend.”

I have not designated this drive to denigrate, delegitimize and demonize the conduct of the Jewish state — and of late, the very idea of a Jewish state – “pernicious,” “perverse” and “paradoxical” without reason.

Should this unholy crusade achieve its declared objectives, it will precipitate a reality that reflects a total negation of the very values invoked for its promotion, and the antithesis of those allegedly cherished by its propagators.

Escalating enmity

Until relatively recently, the bulk of the Times’s censure of Israel’s actions focused on its policy regarding the status of the territories beyond the pre-1967 Green Line, and the fate of the Palestinian Arabs resident there.

But with the emerging realization — indeed, perhaps resignation — that the previously preferred outcome of establishing a Palestinian state in these territories, is becoming increasingly unworkable, emphasis has shifted and enmity escalated. It now seems that the paper has begun to channel condemnation less against what the Jewish state does, and more against what it is — i.e. Jewish.

This is a line that it is apparently pursuing with increasing virulence, frequency and prominence on its pages, last week touting it on both the front page of its Sunday edition and the cover of its weekly magazine.

Barely a week previously, a lengthy opinion piece by University of Massachusetts professor of philosophy Joseph Levine appeared, advancing contrived and contorted claims disputing the conceptual validity of the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination and political sovereignty, now even within the Green Line.

To recap

Readers will recall that in my column last week, I pointed out the conceptual fallacies and faults in Levine’s approach to statehood, which seems to postulate that no state can be considered “democratic” if the conduct of its public life reflects the sociocultural dominance of the major ethnic group — even if it comprises a “vast majority.”

Accordingly, we are asked to believe that majority rule is an intolerable moral anathema for democratic governance. Indeed, unless the majority surrenders — or, at least, substantially dilutes – the expression of its identity, while the minority is allowed full expression of its identity — no matter how incompatible or adversarial it might be with that of the majority — the resulting sociopolitical reality is allegedly so disastrously impaired that its continued existence cannot be countenanced.

Thus, in Levine’s eyes, a “people” only merit the right to self-determination if they comprise a segment of humanity whose members are bound together by nothing more substantive than their equality before the law of the land and the accident of their physical location within the borders of that land. This is, as I showed, a position severely at odds with those of leading philosophers of liberal political theory over the past two centuries. It is one which fails to capture the most elemental essence that drives aspirations for national self-determination and that comprises the primal conditions for stable democratic governance: A sentiment of political allegiance born of a spiritual compatibility — which may arise because of ethnic homogeneity, or despite ethnic heterogeneity.

Silly or sinister?

In the absence of such communal cohesiveness, as John Stuart Mill tells us, “Free institutions are next to impossible.” Indeed, “in a country made up of a people without fellow-feeling the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.”

Recent history bears eloquent, if tragic, testimony to the enduring validity of this perceptive insight. Wherever attempts have been made to weld inimical ethnicities together in a single political entity, if it is not bound by the iron grip of tyranny, the results have almost invariably been reminiscent of a Hobbesian nightmare of anarchy, chaos and bloodshed — as the examples of Lebanon and the Balkans starkly underscore.

Clearly, then, proposing policy prescriptions that not only disregard, but directly contravene, both the theoretical rationale and the empirical evidence regarding the attainment of the purported goal of sustainable democracy is either silly or sinister.

But whether dumb or deceptive, it is an approach that harbors huge hazards for Jews and Arabs – and for the hopes of liberal democracy — in the Holy Land.

“Israel was a mistake”

Yet despite its clearly calamitous consequences, it appears that this is the approach the Times has opted to adopt and advance both by publications of explicit endorsement (such as Levine’s opinion piece) and by implicit insinuations (such as last week’s 8,000-word magazine cover story by one Ben Ehrenreich, warmly embracing the Palestinian “resistance”).

Thus for example, flying in the face of facts, the latter misinforms Times readers by implying that the recent Operation Pillar of Defense was an unprovoked Israeli initiative that began when “in mid-November, Israeli rockets began falling on Gaza,” conspicuously omitting any mention of the fact that it was hundreds of Palestinian rockets falling on Israel that precipitated the fighting.

But, perhaps more significant — and revealing — than the blatantly biased and manifestly misleading content of the Times cover story, was the choice of its author. For as veteran pundit Jonathan Tobin tersely remarks: “Ehrenreich’s bias is so deeply embedded in the piece that it is pointless to criticize anything but the decision to employ him to write it.”

And that is precisely the point. For it is more than implausible to assume the Times was unaware of Ehrenreich’s strong anti- Zionist predilections. Indeed, these were unambiguously laid out in a Los Angeles Times op-ed titled, “Zionism is the problem” (March 15, 2009). In it Ehrenreich unfavorably compares the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa, stating: “If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable.”

He goes on to advocate what in effect is the abolition of the nation-state of the Jews, pontificating: “The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace. Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice.”

This appears then to be the kind of journalist/ journalism that the New York Times is promoting.

As to the public sentiment it is liable to arouse, this might be gauged by the tenor of one of the talkbacks to Ehrenreich’s cover story — rerun in abbreviated form as an interview with him posted on the New York Times site today (March 21) — from Molly in Costa Rica: “Israel was a mistake, and they must leave.

Israel is a transplanted organ that the Middle East is rejecting. It will never fly.”

Perilous, preposterous prescription

The New York Times-propagated prescription, that in effect promotes the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state and replacing it with an un-Jewish secular state-of-all-its- citizens, is preposterous and perilous — in both principle and practice. Supporting it puts you firmly on the wrong side of history — and for self-respecting New York Times readers, what could be worse? For the concept of “multiculturalism,” once so fashionable, that underpins the rationale of the state-of-all-its-citizens idea, is rapidly being discredited. It has been tried — and has failed.

As I pointed out in an earlier column, “Nakba nonsense,” May 17, 2012, harsh and explicit declarations have come from the leaders of nearly all major European countries – including France, UK and Germany – acknowledging its disappointing failure. For example, Angela Merkel lamented: “The tendency had been to say, ‘Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side.’ But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.” Moreover in democracies as far-flung as Australia and Canada, the media have begun to publish expressions of exasperation and frustration at the deleterious effects of trying to absorb cultures incompatible with the host culture.

Even against a far less adversarial national- political background, incompatible social-cultural and religious disparities are causing increasingly unacceptable societal consequences for the host societies.

It is thus entirely unclear why anyone — unless motivated by malice — could possibly propose the application of such a failed formula in the far more daunting circumstances prevailing in Israel.

Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

Despite the protestations of anti-Zionists, such as Levine and Ehrenreich, that opposing Zionism “does not manifest anti-Semitism,” it does.

No amount of academic acrobatics or intellectual sophistry can blur the truth in the words, widely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism. And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly and freely accord all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.”

It is anti-Semitic (i.e. Judeophobic) to denigrate every coercive action undertaken by Israel — whether military or administrative, proactive or reactive, preemptive or punitive — intended to protect Jews from attacks merely because they are Jewish, as racially motivated, disproportionate crimes against humanity.

It is anti-Semitic to peddle dangerous delusions, designed to deprive the Jews of their national independence and political sovereignty, and the purveyors of such poisonous merchandise must be forced to bear the burden of shame that plying their ignominious trade so richly deserves.

Fatal flaw in post-Zionist logic

I realize I have not fulfilled all my promises made last week, and several issues I undertook to deal with have been left unaddressed, particularly the significance for the non-Jewish minorities living in a Zionist Jewish nation-state. Regrettably, I have let my indignation at the New York Times distract me and that – together with new editorial constraints – preclude further discussion.

However, as my credibility is everything, I P-R-O-M-I-S-E to take up these topics soon in a forthcoming article – which I can already inform you will be titled, “The fatal flaw in post-Zionist logic”.

Until then, “Happy Passover.” gem too ! ‘Senseless & spineless: Speaking truth to power’ –

Is it any wonder why this blog issues its own rallying cry, in effect, summoning others to support “Israel’s Intellectual Warriors”? –

Time is of the essence. It is NOT on Israel’s side!

Obama & Crew March In Lock-Step With UN Thugs, Chiefly To Disarm Americans…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Popular truisms are not for nothing. One can often extrapolate much from their intended usage, as well as learn from their bastardization. As such, there really is “more than one way to skin a cat”, even when things appear exceedingly bleak. But one must first recognize the dangers, otherwise how can one skin this or that. Precisely.

Yet, without piecing together all the (seemingly) disparate threads, one is hard pressed to know where the end point is. And this is no small matter. In fact, without said recognition the slippery deed will be done, bereft of a chance to massively push back, against those who seek nothing less than total submission – yours!

Par for the course, radical revolutionaries avail themselves of a potpourri of converging – to the non discerning eye, they can be seen as diverging – epicenters, as they bore from within. Rules For Radicals – …is their “holy” grail. Their bible. It is more than worthwhile to print out the above rules, as they serve as a blue print. They explain the heretofore inexplicable, making sense out of what is transpiring before our (horrified) eyes. In fact, this American-Israeli has a copy of the actual book and studies it, as necessary. Yes, reading is fundamental!

In furtherance of the above, and as a tie in to the commentary at hand, learn “Adina Kutnicki’s”  lessons/rules herein, free of charge to boot. Less than a baker’s dozen (the number within the left’s rule book), but no less trenchant.

Rule Number One: Leftist dogma is the same world over, and don’t ever forget it –

Rule Number Two:  Western media is mostly in the service of radical leftist forces, and operates to the detriment of patriots. They are particularly fired up against Americans & Israelis, the locus of leftist rage –

Rule Number Three: Leftist academia has a death grip on the nation’s young, capable of upending western civilization –

Rule Number Four: The company one keeps is emblematic of ones worldview/intentions –

Rule Number Five: Ones “roots” are, more than less, embedded, even if one states otherwise –

And while the above rules are not foolproof, they are indeed worthy of all due deliberation, as they have proven their merits, time and again. So, is the following at all surprising, even though many will “see no (Obama) evil, hear no evil”, even as Americans become buried with evidence?

‘Disarming American citizens, Obama style’

Canada Free Press, Doug Hagmann, March 19, 2013

Presently flying under the radar of the American people is the much misunderstood,  deliberately mischaracterized and under-reported United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. Considering the persistent multi-level attacks against U.S. gun owners and American’s rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “Final U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” that convened yesterday and is scheduled to last through March 28, 2013 should be front page news all across America. But it’s not, and for good reason.

But first, let it be made clear thatBarack Hussein Obama is on record as being against the private ownership of firearms by American citizens. This might surprise anyone who listens to the hysterically-pitched assertions by such Obama lapdogs as Chris Mathews and Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, who contend that Obama has posed no threat to private gun ownership as President. Such assertions are only convincing to those who have not done any research into this matter.Most people, including conservative Americans thought the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was a dead issue, or at least not a threat to U.S. gun owners based on a number of assumptions relating to international treaties and U.S. Constitutional law. Like everything else with the Obama regime, however, things are never what they appear, nor are they as simple as we are led to believe.

Obama vs. the Second Amendment

In 2003, Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois. While running for political office in 2004, Obama called for national legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. As reported in the February 20, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune, Obama was quoted as 
“back[ing] federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”Barack Hussein Obama has a long and well documented history on gun control, going back as far as his law school days. There, he was mentored by Laurence Tribe, a staunch opponent to gun rights of American citizens. In 1994, Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago based charitable organization that in part, is a proponent of various anti-gun groups and related agendas.

In the April 2, 2008 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama was quoted stating “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted twice against SB 2165, more commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which would permit household occupants to defend themselves through the use of firearms.

Perhaps most nefarious and telling of all is what Obama whispered to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control:  “I just want you to knowthat we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

By far and despite the intent of Obama-supported organizations such as Fact Check and Media Matters, it is clear that he is the most anti-Second Amendment (putative) President ever to hold office.

U.S. arms control via the UN

Perhaps most disconcerting about the present actions of the United Nations is the cavalier attitude held by most, including many conservatives, that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would be completely impotent against the U.S. Constitution and American’s rights under the Second Amendment. After all, it is argued that to be effective, such a treaty would require Senate ratification and at present, such ratification would have a “zero possibility” of passage. Such thinking is consistent with a normal political atmosphere and an administration that has a genuine respect for the U.S. Constitution. Considering what we’ve seen over the last decade, does the recent track record of our elected leaders alleviate your concerns?

Consider that within 24 hours of his re-election, Obama pushed for a new round of international negotiations to revive the very U.N. treaty he visibly backed off of in the months leading to the 2012 elections. Isn’t this act alone enough to trip some alarm bells, even among the most skeptic?

It should also be noted that on February 26, 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty,  concluding that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” A review of this four-page document reveals certain questionable assumptions on which that conclusion is based.

This is a warning to all Americans that the Obama support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty can lead to some “UN-intended” consequences to American’s right to own and bear arms. Americans looking at this issue are failing to look at the larger picture, which is the ultimate subjugation of the United States to a global governance. This can most effectively be accomplished through the disarmament of its citizens, especially in the face of violent outbreaks as the U.S. and the world economic systems begin to unravel.

The machinations of the Obama regime within the inner workings of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty must not be underestimated. We must look at the bigger picture and the end-game objectives of the globalists pulling the puppet strings. All is not what it appears. …and raising the clarion call is surely more than necessary, if freedom and liberty mean anything at all. Some more “proof in the pudding” –

But it is not as if this blog hasn’t fleshed out the Radical-in-Chief’s gun control designs, both involving the UN and in other converging ways. Specifically, back in July 2012, at this blog’s inception, an antenna was raised about the UN’s march toward disarming American’s, and with the Commander-in-Chief’s blessings- How dare he/they? 

Ever since then, the topic has been hotter than hot, as related within all the attendant links –  

Nevertheless, some may be heartened by the recent “shoot down” given to Sen Feinstein, the left coast harpie, as she incessantly guns for total control with her radical revolutionary surrogates –

No matter. This is certainly not the juncture to become complacent. In fact, doubling down is the way forward. And who said we can’t learn from our enemies (yes, they are) –…using their tactics against them, as we aim for Conservative, Constitutional victory!

The Convergence Of Obama’s Diety, Saul Alinsky, & His Channeling To Israeli Students…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The Radical/Islamist-in-Chief flew out of Israel – after a whirlwind visit – in the midst of a sandstorm, but the natural phenomena is the least of the dust up.

Interestingly, while this is being written, a copy of “Rules For Radicals” is within bird’s eye view, as it sits atop this blogger’s computer desk. Rest assured, am more than familiar with “the rules”. If anything, a quick study.

Most intrinsically, it is important to internalize, Barack HUSSEIN Obama deliberately chose an already captivated audience to deliver his major address to the Israeli public. He understands that Israel’s universities are infiltrated and penetrated by “true believers”; leftist profs, more than willing to impart “the rules”. Thus, it was no accident, the Radical-in-Chief bypassed the Knesset, in order to “message” Israel’s youth.

You must understand, though there are communists/leftists and Arabists/Islamists within the halls of the Knesset (better to leave this tragedy for another discussion), the majority are Zionists, whether secular or religious. Besides, the most aggressive MK’s against leftist dictates are those who hail from the Soviet Union, for they are allergic to radical, revolutionary smoke being blown in their faces. They are a tough crew (thank heavens!) and the POTUS knows it too.

So, off to Jerusalem’s main convention center “The One” went, before an already primed, hyped audience, mind you, sans any students from a fully accredited university in Judea and Samaria, Ariel U. A hammer and tongs message, in and of itself. Snake in the grass….never mind the audacity of Israel’s leaders, treating Ariel U as an illegitimate bastard child!

Be that as it may, this is where the rubber meets the road: Having learned his revolutionary lessons well, the Radical-in-Chief is busy selling off America’s assets to communist/Islamist regimes, and said economic/societal deconstruction is straight out of “the rules” playbook – It is necessary to bore within ( like termites ), simultaneously knocking down the main edifice, yet stealthily and incrementally.

Moreover, leftist dogma is the same world over, as such, he knew he was coming to a deeply receptive young audience – In effect, priming Israel’s young shock troops to lead the charge – against mostly reluctant leaders – one upending at a time. It is NO accident that Saul Alinsky is documented within this particular link.

In fact, if not for the deleterious actions of Israel’s profs, none of this would be relevant, but it is –…and there would have been no reason to write, ‘Post-Zionist Academics Further Israel’s Delegitimization’. Heartburn-worthy.

Coming full circle, we witness the channeling of Obama’s diety, Saul Alinsky, as the POTUS imparts to university students what their duties/obligations and tasks are, as “agents/creators for change”. G-d have mercy.


MARCH 22, 2013 

Barack Obama American flag SC Obama Quotes Alinsky in Speech to Young Israelis

JERUSALEM – In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.

Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

And if not for the radical profs at the student’s throats, “The One” would be spitting in the wind. Therefore, his parting shot to Israel’s impressionable youth should be viewed as exhibit number one, demonstrating to all friends of Israel why it is more than nation-saving to support Israel’s Intellectual Warriors”. They are mandatory push back, against those lunging towards Israel’s (the west’s) jugular, even if they fly in on Air Force One! –

Prima facie evidence.

The Left’s March Towards Totalitarian Rule…One Party At A Time…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

As is said, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but neither did the left’s march towards totalitarian rule start yesterday. Step by step, incremental inch by inch, they have penetrated/infiltrated the U.S. body politic, sucking all liberty-seeking constructs from within. Parasitic hosts.

While a majority of Americans have been busy living their lives, raising families and contributing to society, a cadre of civil society “elites”, in tandem with political leaders and attendant NGO’s, have been chipping away at America’s foundations  – Even your waist size is no longer private, as the thugs in Washington order docs to hand over patient records to HHS! Liberty’s edifice is nearly ready to crumble/tumble, yet more “work” needs to be done. But before we get to their latest frontal assault, a recap is in order, if only to demonstrate that hyperventilating is not for nothing.

Tragically, leftist dogma is the same world over –…capable of traversing oceans and leaping tall buildings – Superman-like.

And when the once free media has become little more than an appendage of the radically left Dem party, then what else is there to say? –

Most distressingly, the RINOS in charge of the Repub Party are barely equipped to tie their shoes, let alone beat back the Dems at patriot’s throats –

Therefore, once again, hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but the following must be taken for what it is – a push for totalitarian rule.

‘A one-party system?’ –  Canada Free Press – Klaus Rohrich, Saturday, January 26, 2013

“A number of progressive pundits have been urging Obama and the Democrats to sweep aside all opposition to their ultra-leftist agenda by destroying the Republican Party. Leading the pack of yapping hyenas is John Dickerson, who in an op-ed piece for Slate Magazine urged Obama to “go for the throat” and “destroy the GOP” in order to achieve his transformational goals. Rachel Maddow argued that America is a “Liberal” country (capital L is hers) because of an NBC/Washington Post poll that showed a slim majority of Americans supposedly support both same-sex marriage and “immigration reform.” Then there’s Chris Matthews with his histrionics and the whole CNN gang who acted as cheerleader during Obama’s inauguration to all six of their audience members.
What the liberal media seems to be advocating at this point is that Obama turn the United States into a one party state and seize this moment to ram through a plethora of programs that may or may not be beneficial to the nation. To date there is no evidence that anything this president has done has had any positive benefit on the lives of most Americans. On the contrary, Americans are a lot poorer today than they were when George W. Bush left office, and I suspect they will be poorer yet by the end of Obama’s second term. Unemployment among the young is still at the highest level in nearly 70 years. The constituency most captivated by “hope & change,” namely African Americans, is still desperately hoping for change as unemployment among blacks is more than double the rest of the nation. And that’s not a statistic that can be blamed on ‘The Man,’ but on the man who is currently occupying the White House.I don’t suppose that there’s anything wrong with being happy that your guy won. I’m sure a lot of Republicans were equally happy with Reagan and Bush’s victory. What I find troubling is the zest and zeal with which these cheerleaders for the cultural death cult are urging the permanent elimination of legitimate opposition.

It’s no accident that progressive media types in America are calling for the destruction of the GOP, given Obama’s many musings about what he could achieve without having to include a pesky Congress in the decision making process.One of America’s greatest historical legacies is its staunch commitment to the two party system. It’s the only way to make a democracy really work, as it ensures that a majority of votes carries the day, even if it is as slim a majority as was seen last November 6th. The purpose of an opposition party, be it Republican or Democrat is to ensure that the government does not run roughshod over the minority by imposing draconian legislation. What separates America from most other nations is its two party system.

But as I’ve long maintained, scratch a liberal’s thin veneer and underneath you will find a fascist. In America, they tend to be liberal fascists, but fascists nevertheless.

The last thing we need in America is a one party political system. Germany had a one party system from March 1933 to April 1945. Russia had a one party system from October 1917 to December 1991. China has had a one party system since October 1949 and North Korea since 1948. Both endure to this day. The one thing all these countries have in common is a legacy of misery and death.”

It is hardly an exercise in hyperbole to posit the following, even though the main thesis throughout appears nothing short of pie-in-the-sky – “one party rule”. As such, the Second Amendment is in danger (; “due process” is hardly a given (; nor is the First Amendment off limits (

In line with totalitarian constructs, what can a patriot conclude when a query into “The One’s” bonafides – via E-Verity – is considered taboo and punishable – 


FEBRUARY 4, 2013
“Here is the story of how a mother and homemaker in Washington State stood up to challenge the identity fraud of Barack Obama. Learn how she paid a price for her courage to run the president through E-Verify”. …Orwell’s universe…Alice-in-Wonderland’s Looking Glass too. Frightening.

HOWEVER, in order to effectuate the above anti-American putsches, fiddling with the Twenty-Second Article of Amendment must be accomplished –

In light of all the above (and so much more), does “one party rule” appear too ludicrous a reach for the revolutionaries gripping Washington’s helm? In conjunction, doesn’t it make sense that their previous insidious designs are exactly what they appear – anti-American wrecking balls?

You decide.

Leftist Mendacity…Gunning For The Second Amendment…The Gutting Of The Constitution…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Protection for me but not for thee. Guns for me but not for thee. So sayeth the leftist brayers in America’s midst. Elsewhere too. And if one needs demonstrable proofs to support said thesis (of leftist mendacity), where oh where does a patriot begin? Here and there.

“Going postal” has taken on ever more sinister meaning, as the Radical-in-Chief leads (with his obnoxiously familiar head tilt, nose in the air, feigning he is above the fray, that he isn’t forward marching his leftist troops…and pigs do fly) his fellow revolutionaries into highly dangerous territory. Deadly.Thereby, creating a palpable environment for gun control advocates to threaten to kill legal gun owners – . Does it get any more twisted than that? Nope. An American leadership gone haywire.

If the above doesn’t send chills up and down your spine, imagine what drove a dedicated U.S. Marine to upbraid Sen. Feinstein (and fellow anti-Constitutional “lawmakers”) to the tune of an open letter – . A travesty. A tragedy in the making.

But what does one expect, when a rogue leadership fiddles with the Constitution, with the intent to install Barack HUSSEIN Obama as “President for Life” – .This American-Israeli blogger is dead serious.

In this regard, welcome to “Obama’s America” – …. a land of tyranny. Diametrically opposed to its founding principles – the “land of the free, the home of the brave”.

Alas, leftist dogma is the same world over – … a mortal danger – a dagger to its heart – to western civilization.

Therefore, the latest is a manifestation, a mandatory push back, against a tyrannical regime


‘We think they should demonstrate their belief in their own programs’

A spokesman for a foundation that successfully has battled in court to uphold the Constitution’s Second Amendment is challenging not only politicians but celebrities who think the American public should be disarmed to go without their own firearms protections.

“That would include Joe Biden’s shotguns,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, “and the armed security now enjoyed by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”

He said such leading opponents of gun ownership should begin the process and “lead by example” through repudiation of any of their own firearms as well as the “armed security” they now have.

“It seems clear from the direction the administration is going that it wants to severely restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners to purchase the firearms of their choice,” Gottlieb said, “and we think they should demonstrate their belief in their own programs by giving up their firearms and security first.”

The issue is in the headlines right now because anti-gun politicians including President Obama are trying to capitalize on the horror following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six adults victims.

The alleged gunman shot and killed himself, so there may be questions about the attack that never are answered.

An argument for armed self-defense, in “America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age.”

Nevertheless, Obama has appointed Vice President Joe Biden to head up a task force and make recommendations on more gun controls for the United States.

But Obama should be a leader in another area, Gottlieb said, that of relinquishing firearms and protection from firearms.

“It would especially apply to President Obama,” he said, “who just signed legislation giving himself Secret Service protection for life, at the expense of taxpayers he wants to disarm.”

He said the same standard is appropriate for “anti-gun celebrities who have bodyguards while supporting legislation that would deprive average citizens from owning firearms for personal protection.”

There is good that comes from Americans’ access to weaponry, he pointed out.

“For example,” he noted, “when I appeared with CNN’s Piers Morgan recently, he asserted that nobody needs an AR-15. The other day near Houston, a Texas teenager used an AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year-old sister from a home invasion by shooting two burglars. Piers can choke on that.”

Gottlieb believes that public figures simply don’t have a right to advocate for gun bans for private citizens unless they first voluntarily give up their personal security.

“These anti-gun politicians were not elected to positions of royalty,” Gottlieb said. “They are citizens, with no more rights than any other citizen. They were elected to serve the public, not treat the public like serfs. If they want us to put our safety at risk, they should drop the pretense and give up their guns and guards before daring to suggest that anyone else do the same.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

It fought and won the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case that applied Second Amendment rights to individuals in states all across the nation.

The organization earlier called out the hypocrisy of mayors across the nation who advocate for gun control.

It took a look at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan called Mayors Against Illegal Guns that is to enhance gun restrictions on citizens city by city.

SAF officials said perhaps he should be focusing on the mayors themselves, not the residents of their cities.

“Michael Bloomberg created this group to further his personal agenda of public disarmament,” Gottlieb said at the time. “But within the ranks of his organization, our research has found several politicians who have been convicted of various serious crimes, thus making it impossible for them to finish their terms.

“We discovered,” he said, “one mayor convicted of perjury and embezzlement, another who was convicted of attempted child molestation, and yet another who was convicted of assault and racketeering. There was one who was convicted on bribery, fraud and money laundering, and another who was convicted of domestic violence.

“In short,” Gottlieb said, “many of these elitist politicians can no longer own firearms. The crimes they were convicted of suggest they are public enemies rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens!

“Perhaps Bloomberg should worry about background checks on his colleagues, rather than law-abiding gun owners,” he suggested.

The group boasts that it has grown to more than 725 mayors in 40 states. But SAF is publicizing mayors who have run into their own troubles.

It is launching its campaign in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, revealing the criminal and ethical wrongdoings of many of the mayors themselves.

See the ad.

Gottlieb reported the research conducted by the foundation found “a far higher rate of criminal activity within the ranks of the MAIG than among the ranks of more than eight million citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms in 49 states.”

Another recent battle for the SAF was in Alameda County, Calif., which changed the rules as three businessmen were trying to open a gun shop. The foundation successfully sued the county for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of three businessmen by wrongfully denying them permits to open a gun shop.

The foundation also recently argued a pair of California cities and the state’s Department of Justice improperly confiscated firearms during investigations and then refused to return them to their owners – even after the subjects of the inquiries were cleared.
Other cases the SAF has handled in recent months:

  • SAF sued the state of California over a “vague” gun ban over a case in which a man twice was jailed and then cleared. The focal point is the definition of an “assault weapon.” The statute’s definition of weapons is so “vague and ambiguous,” the group contends, that one man was arrested on two different occasions for violations but ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing. “It’s an insult to be arrested once for violating a law that is so vague and ambiguous that law enforcement officers cannot tell the difference between what is and what is not a legal firearm under this statute,” said Gottlieb, “but to be arrested and jailed twice for the same offense is an outrage.”
  • In New York, the organization has asked for a summary judgment that would strike New York City’s $340 triennial fee for just owning a handgun. The legal brief explains that under U.S. Supreme Court rulings “the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense is a part of the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment’s protections.” The case, brought by SAF, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and individuals including an electrical contractor, a paramedic, CPA and woodworker, argues, “The city’s $340 fee is inherently prohibitive and serves the impermissible purpose of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights. While the city can charge a nominal fee to defray costs, the $340 fee is not nominal, and has never been calculated to defray costs.”
  • The organization has sued New Jersey and officials and judges over procedures that allowed them to refuse firearms permits for a kidnap victim, a man who carries large amounts of cash for his business and a civilian FBI employee who fears attacks from radical Islamists. The permissions were denied on the grounds people had not shown a “justifiable need.” “Law-abiding New Jersey citizens have been arbitrarily deprived of their ability to defend themselves and their families for years under the state’s horribly crafted laws,” said an SAF spokesman. “The law grants uncontrolled discretion to police chiefs and other public officials to deny license applications even in cases where the applicant has shown a clear and present danger exists.”
  • The SAF filed a case on behalf of an honorably discharged veteran from the Vietnam War and names as defendants Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Jefferson Wayne Schrader. The question is whether the state of Maryland can deprive an individual of the right to possess a weapon over a misdemeanor. Schrader had been convicted of misdemeanor assault relating to a fight involving a man who previously had assaulted him in Annapolis. But he was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift or to purchase a handgun for personal protection.
  • SAF filed a claim against Maryland for a man who alleged the state was violating the Second Amendment by refusing to renew his handgun permit. Raymond Woollard originally was issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family event in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005 after the defendant in the case was released from prison. But state officials later refused to renew the permit, even though the intruder now lives some three miles from Woollard.
  • SAF sued Westchester County, N.Y., because officials there were requiring that residents have a “good cause” to ask for a handgun permit. The federal lawsuit alleges the requirement conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment establishes a personal right to “keep and bear arms.” Individual plaintiffs in the case are Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.”

The left’s game plan is relentless, boundless and without remorse. But whether they honed their skills, aka “made their bones”, on Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” –  is neither here nor there. What matters are the results of their misdeeds, deadly in their scope.

Due to the above – and so much more – patriots are as much at war with the die-hard left, as they are with the Islamists at their throats.

As is said, “forewarned is forearmed” – literally!