Video of the Day: Sen. Diane Feinstein in '95: “If I Could Ban Every Single Gun, I Would”

oh, my goodness, the good lady from California must have forgotten her oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states:

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.

 Seems pretty straightforward yo us.  Maybe the lady from California should bone-up on her understanding of the U.S. Constitution.  “… if I Could Ban Every Single Gun, I would...”

RELATED STORY

•  Back to the Future: What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations

Video of the Day: Watch: SEIU Supporters At LAX —Useful Idiots

KCAL9′s Dave Lopez spoke with several protesters who weren’t aware of the battle between the labor union and the airport services company.

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy.  The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

What Would Fiscal Cliff Mean for Student Aid?

FinAid.org founder Mark Kantrowitz on how the potential fiscal cliff would impact college students.

If you are considering Federal student loans to help put your son or daughter through college, you must watch this video and read the related reading to better prepare yourselves.  The status quo will be seriously  impacted based upon how the president and congress solve the quickly approaching, so-called "fiscal cliff."

RELATED READING

•  The Fiscal Cliff Explained (Forbes)
• The Sequester Explained (BPC)
• It’s not a fiscal cliff—it’s an austerity crisis (WAPO)

Update on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 7:13 AM by Basil Ryan

Will Big Bird Survive the "fiscal cliff"—and other Pressing Questions>>

President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy FAILURES

Picking Losers: Why Cronyism Isn't Capitalism

It's no secret that the Obama Administration is notorious for its cronyism especially when it comes to green energy projects—witness Solyndra and venture capitalist firm Vantage Point Venture Partners.

In this video award winning author, screenwriter and media commentator Andrew Klavan examines the differences between cronyism or crony-capitalism and real free market capitalism.

Dear Liberals and Progressives We Want a Divorce

Painting: “The Forgotten Man”—Jon McNaughton

I received this email the other day from a friend and wanted to share it with my like-minded readers.  You may have already received it but for those who haven’t and my Liberal friends—this is for you.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and different tastes.

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election has made us realize that we want a divorce. 

I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.  It’s not me it’s you!

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on somewhat friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.  We offer you this separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and different world views.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and bio-fuels.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them to your country.

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

You can have your beloved Big Bird, PBS, generational able-bodied welfare cheats food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, dopers and illegal aliens.

We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey Moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and destroy countries that threaten us.

You can have The Hague, peaceniks, war protesters and “occupiers.”   When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, Roseanne Barr and Arianna Huffington.

You may also have the United Nations, but know this, we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone "afordable health care," if you can find any practicing doctors.

We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing,” "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World.”

We'll practice trickle-down economics, and you can continue to give Keynesianism, trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it so often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name, our flag and Country Music.

Would you agree to this?   If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots.  If not, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, we’ll let you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Most Sincerely,

Fred Keller

Proud Conservative American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and Cindy Sheehan with you.

P.S.S.  And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

“We Are Hungry”

First Lady Michelle Obama, Administration Officials and Let’s Move! advocates reaffirm commitment to raise a healthier generation of kids.

But kids say their message has not been addressed in the media. They are excited about being offered more healthy fruits and vegetables. We feel the protein and carbohydrate limitations, 10-12 ounces a week,are not enough fuel for our average very active student. Most students have a weights class and compete in sports. We see a problem with a one size fits all programs that only are meant to target the overweight student, not the average student as deemed by local governing boards.

Here’s a parody created by students on the national school lunch policy mandated by The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 which humorously shows the results of the limitations in carbohydrates and proteins. To see media reaction to "We Are Hungry" and the Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

RELATED STORY

• School district proposes trash can cameras to catch kids tossing veggies

Constitution 201: FDR’s New Bill of Rights

Welcome to part 5 of our 10-part lecture series presented by Hillsdale College entitled “Constitution 201.”

Each lecture lasts approximately 40 minutes. Lectures and other study materials will be included and are available to our readers. We expect to present all 10 parts before Election Day, November 6.

OVERVIEW

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROSEVELTThoroughly educated in Progressive principles, President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that the task of statesmanship is to redefine our rights “in the terms of a changing and growing social order.”   While the Founders thought the truths they celebrated in the Declaration of Independence were self-evident and so also timeless and unchanging, FDR argued for a new self-evident economic truth. His proposed “Economic Bill of Rights” lays out the means by which our new economic rights are to be secured, thereby achieving social equality and social justice.

Study Guide - "FDR's New Bill of Rights"

 About the Lecturer:

Will Morrisey is the William and Patricia LaMothe Chair in the U.S. Constitution and Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College, where he has taught since 2000. He teaches courses in American politics, political philosophy, and comparative politics.

 Dr. Morrisey is the author of eight books on statesmanship and political philosophy including Self-Government, The American Theme: Presidents of the Founding and Civil War; The Dilemma of Progressivism: How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government; Regime Change: What It Is, Why It Matters; Culture in the Commercial Republic; and Reflections on DeGaulle. He is currently working on a study of the geopolitical strategies of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. He has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, the American Political Science Review, the Claremont Review of Politics, and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy, of which he has served as an editor since 1979. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Kenyon College, and his Ph.D. in political science at the New School University.

Constitution 201: Founders vs. Progressives

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence

JOHN DEWEYWelcome to part 4 of our 10-part lecture series presented by Hillsdale College entitled “Constitution 201.”

Each lecture lasts approximately 40 minutes. Lectures and other study materials will be included and are available to our readers. We expect to present all 10 parts before Election Day, November 6.

Overview

Progressivism represents a radical departure from the Founders’ understanding of the purpose and ends of government. Comparing and contrasting the arguments of the Founders and of the Progressives regarding six key principles of government—the meaning of freedom; the purpose of government arising from the meaning of freedom; the elements of domestic policy; the extent of foreign policy; the centrality of the consent of the governed; and the size and scope of government—shows decisively that Progressivism is not a logical outcome of the Founders’ principles, but rather a conscious rejection of them.

Study Guide - "Overview: Founders versus Progressives"

RELATED STORIES

• FDR Lost speech new bill of rights (Video, 2:00)
• How Obama is using policy to pursue social justice (THE BLAZE)

Constitution 201: Woodrow Wilson and the Rejection of the Founders’ Constitution (Part 2/2)

Welcome to part 3 of our 10-part lecture series presented by Hillsdale College entitled “Constitution 201.”

Each lecture lasts approximately 40 minutes. Lectures and other study materials will be included and are available to our readers. We expect to present all 10 parts before Election Day, November 6.

>>Part 2 Study Guide 

Overview:

Woodrow Wilson argued that the separation of powers established by the Constitution prevented truly democratic government.  In order to render government more accountable to public opinion, Wilson held that the business of politics—namely, elections—should be separated from the administration of government, which would be overseen by nonpartisan, and therefore neutral, experts.  The president, as the only nationally elected public official, best embodies the will of the people, resulting in a legislative mandate.

Poll: How citizens feel about Constitutional changes and privacy

Is the Constitution an enduring document or irrelevant in today’s world? The latest AP-National Constitution Center poll shows concerns some Americans have about constitutional issues.  >>Continue reading.

Constitution 201: Woodrow Wilson and the Rejection of the Founders’ Principles (Part 1/2)

WOODROW WILSONWelcome to part 2 of our 10-part lecture series presented by Hillsdale College entitled “Constitution 201.”

Each lecture lasts approximately 40 minutes.  Lectures and other study materials will be included and are available to our readers.  We expect to present all 10 parts before Election Day, November 6.

Overview: Woodrow Wilson and the Rejection of the Founders’ Principles

Progressives believe that America needs to move beyond the principles of the Founding.  Woodrow Wilson—who served as president of Princeton University, governor of New Jersey, and as America’s 28th president—was one of the earliest Progressive thinkers.  His critique of the Founding—namely, his rejection of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers—is one of the most articulate expressions of the Progressive movement’s core beliefs.

The Founders' Key Lecture Series: The Progressive Rejection of the Founding

Following is an overview for the tenth and final installment of our 10-part The Founders’ Key lecture series and is in our opinion the most important presentation in the series:

Progressivism is the belief that America needs to move or “progress” beyond the principles of the American Founding. Organized politically more than a hundred years ago, Progressivism insists upon flexibility in political forms unbound by fixed and universal principles. Progressives hold that human nature is malleable and that society is perfectible. Affirming the inexorable, positive march of history, Progressives see the need for unelected experts who would supervise a vast administration of government.

Progressivism is rooted in the philosophy of European thinkers, most notably the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Progressivism takes its name from a faith in “historical progress.” According to the leading lights of Progressivism, including Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Dewey, human nature has evolved beyond the limitations that the Founders identified. Far from fearing man’s capacity for evil, Progressives held that properly enlightened human beings could be entrusted with power and not abuse it.  The Progressive idea of historical progress is tied to the idea of historical contingency, which means that each period of history is guided by different and unique values that change over time. The “self-evident truths” that the Founders upheld in the Declaration of Independence, including natural rights, are no longer applicable. Circumstances, not eternal principles, ultimately dictate justice.

If human nature is improving, and fixed principles do not exist, government must be updated according to the new reality. The Constitution’s arrangement of government, based upon the separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, only impeded effective government, according to Progressives. The limited government of the Founding is rejected in favor of a “living Constitution.”

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding is presented by Ronald J. Pestritto.  Pestritto is the Charles and Lucia Shipley Chair in the American Constitution, Associate Professor of Politics, and Dean of the Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He is also a senior fellow with the College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. Dr. Pestritto teaches courses in American politics and political philosophy, with a focus on the political thought of the Progressives.

A senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and an academic fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Dr. Pestritto has served as a visiting scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism and Criminal Law: Punishment and Political Thought in the Origins of America; editor of Woodrow Wilson: The Essential Political Writings; and co-editor of American Progressivism: A Reader, as well as a three-book series on American political thought. He has published articles and reviews in the Wall Street Journal and the Claremont Review of Books. He received his B.A. from Claremont McKenna College, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Government from the Claremont Graduate University

We believe this presentation is one of the best in this series and will help our audience better understand what is taking place today in America under this president and those in his administration, as-well-as many on the Left in Congress.

RELATED READING

• New Nationalism Speech, Theodore Roosevelt, August 31, 1910.

Useful Idiots

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

—Opening page Dedication, Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinsky

"The MacIver Institute of Wisconsin reported today that the State’s teachers’ union (WEAC) is "being guided by the philosophy of radical leftist Saul Alinsky." In fact, the National Education Association (NEA) the largest teachers union in the United States included Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals on its members’ recommended reading list page. A check of the NEA website today revealed that this page has been scrubbed from NEA’s website.  Fortunately, we were able to locate this pdf copy that the bumblers at NEA evidently overlooked.

The blog BEFORE IT’S NEWS included a snap shot of the NEA’s original page in its July 15, 2010 post.

Saul David Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. The late Conservative author, William F. Buckley said he was "very close to being an organizational genius.”

The Union News blog provides its readers with a stunning summary of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that we are delighted to share with our readers.

The MacIver Institute of Wisconsin has been closely following the pro-union protests that started in Madison last year has done a great job of bringing to light interesting stories (fake doctor notes).  And it hasn’t disappointed with one of its latest videos, which takes you inside the courtroom as protesters try and mount a defense for why they disobeyed police in August and refused to vacate the capitol.

The following video does a good job of laying out the story, so we won’t bore you by repeating details. But what we will say is this: the protesters were eventually found guilty ($200 fine plus court costs), and just wait until you hear their defense.We're sure their English and history teachers would be proud of them.

Here's the bottom line, the protesters claim that when police told the group to vacate the building because it was closing, the cops never told each one individually. They also believe that police would have been able to do their job (close the capitol) even if the protesters were left to sit in the rotunda.  Our favorite line comes when defendant Damon Terrell claims he would have eventually gotten bored and left. How's that for conviction for "THE CAUSE."

Listen to college student and defendant Damon Terrell and his co-defendants, "colleges," as Terrell refers to them, defend themselves. in court.  This is what our schools and universities are turning out.

 RELATED READING

• Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinsky (Background Information)
• IAF is a leftist community organizing network established in 1940 by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky (MacIver Institute for Public Policy)
• Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”! (RedState blog)

Tea Party Debt Commission Shut Down by Chuck Schumer?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

United States Constitution Bill of Rights

The United States Congress has once again silenced the voice of the American people.

When the Tea Party Debt Commission showed up on Capitol Hill last week to release its final report—which includes almost $10 TRILLION in cuts—the Democrat-controlled Senate Rules Committee shut them down.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.