PATRIOTS: America's Sheriffs Are Standing Tall Against the Left's Full-Throated Attack on the Constitution

Thankful for...

∆ Champaign County Sheriff: The problem isn’t guns or magazines, it’s the mentally ill:

Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh has weighed in on the hysterical call by Democratic Party leaders to ban guns, limit magazine capacities and impose all sorts of other restrictions both in Springfield and in Washington, D.C. ... While he doesn’t come out and say he’s not going to enforce further gun bans, he does cover a number of points that are just common sense around here:

• Right to carry will deter crime.
• America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15, isn’t criminally misused around here.
• Magazine capacity isn’t an issue.
• Cops here, including him, support law-abiding citizens’ right to carry and possess firearms of all sorts.
• The real problem for his department is mental health issues.

∆ NY Sheriff’s PBA blasts Cuomo, Legislature over NY SAFE:

...Our objections to the legislation are numerous and begin with the process under which the bill was voted on in the Senate. It is deeply disturbing to our membership, as public servants and Citizens of the state of New York, the manner in which this legislation was brought to the Senate for vote...

...It is our understanding that many Senators had approximately 20 minutes to read the legislation before being forced to vote on it and note that the bill was brought before the Senate and voted on so quickly that its authors failed to make provisions for the exemption of police officers or the National Guard with respect to the new magazine-capacity requirements. Having reviewed the legislation and given the time constraints, it is our conclusion that there is no possible way any normal person could have read the entire bill and understood its implications prior to voting on it. They most certainly could not have requested and received the input of their constituency and considered their opinions in the matter which is the most basic tenet of a representative government. The entire process was one of secrecy and of intentional withholding of information from the public. We condemn this in the harshest terms. Had there been an opportunity for the public to exercise their right to be involved in the legislative process prior to the bill being voted upon, We would have offered a letter of opposition. Instead, we find ourselves in the rather unique position of opposing legislation after it has been passed. Our membership believes we were denied one of the most basic rights of a democracy by this process and we cannot and will not accept this type of behavior from our
elected officials...

...The SCSDPBA reminds the addressees that “assault weapons,” which are banned under the new legislation if they have 1 military­-type feature, were responsible for 5 out of 769 homicides in New York last year or .007% – hardly a public safety crisis for our state... While it may come as a surprise to the authors of the legislation, most semi-automatic pistols do in fact come with a pistol grip, making nearly every semi-automatic pistol an assault weapon and thus subject to registration on a yearly basis...

...In recent days, we have also become aware of published reports describing a large and growing movement within our state of citizens who have apparently announced their intention of non-compliance with the new statutes as they relate to assault weapons and registration. With an estimated 1 million assault rifles in existence throughout New York, it is beyond comprehension that the legislature and the Governor would needlessly place police officers in a position where they might be called upon to confiscate the previously lawfully owned property of an American citizen. There can be no denying the potential danger this prospect places law enforcement in and once again strongly suggests a bill that was rushed to passage without aforethought or any regard for its potential implications. We cannot excuse this and do not appreciate our very safety being sacrificed for political gain.

∆ Milwaukee Sheriff: Calling 911, Waiting Not Best Option for Defense:

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. has released a 30 second public announcement calling on the citizens of Milwaukee to familiarize themselves with a firearm and aid the police in defending life between the time they dial 911 and the time the police arrive.

∆ Colorado: Sheriffs Say No to Proposed Gun Control:

Late last week, the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC) drew a line in the sand in defense of the Second Amendment, telling elected officials in the Centennial State that they will not support any of the proposed gun restrictions.

These devoted public servants understand better than most the efforts necessary to preserve and advance public safety interests for the community as a whole. The CSOC also made it clear in their statement that they welcome dialogue, in the wake of recent tragedies, that relates to protecting the public. However, they ardently assert that they “…do not believe these tragedies should be used as the backdrop to advance gun control legislation.”

The CSOC specifically cited their direct opposition to the gun grabbing efforts in Denver, being led by extremist organizations like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" (MAIG). The so-called “common sense” measures being weighed by these out-of-town extremists include a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, arbitrary limitations on magazine capacities, the ban on bulk purchases of ammunition, a statewide database for concealed carry permit holders, unnecessarily restrictive mental health checks and the criminalization of law-abiding citizens through the prohibition of private firearms transfers.

∆ Sheriffs Push Back on Obama Gun Control:

More than 90 sheriffs from mostly rural counties say they won't enforce what they deem unconstitutional gun laws from the Obama administration or Congress... The sheriffs sent open letters to President Obama and began a media effort to "stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measures being taken," according to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association... The Texas-based group released a list of 90 sheriffs who oppose Obama's gun-control efforts. The list includes sheriffs from more than 20 states as well as sheriff's associations in Utah and New Mexico.

∆ Utah sheriffs pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

∆ Kentucky Sheriff Vows to Uphold Constitution, Not New Gun Control Laws:

Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman has some advice for federal officials attempting to confiscate legal guns held by citizens in his jurisdiction: “go ahead, make my day.” ... “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold,” Peyman said. “Let them pull that stuff in other places if they want, but not in Jackson County, Kentucky.”

∆ Oregon Sheriff Says Won’t Enforce Un-Constitutional Gun Laws:

An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional... “We are Americans,” Mueller wrote. “We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws... In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians."

I applaud these patriots and am thankful for their service and loyalty to the Constitution. If only our legislators possessed such integrity.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN NEW YORK LAW ENFORCEMENT: An Unconstitutional Law Ain't a Law

Norton v. Shelby County - 118 U.S. 425 (1886):

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

To my brothers and sisters serving in New York law enforcement:

Without public input from stakeholders, without any review from voters, and without discussion in a single public forum, the governor of New York and the state legislature slammed into place one of the nation's most restrictive gun laws yesterday.

The new laws classify more semiautomatic rifles as so-called assault weapons [thereby banning them], requires many gun owners to renew their licenses every five years, increases the regularity of background checks and makes it illegal to own ammunition magazines with more than seven rounds... Some gun-control advocates said the legislation gave New York the nation's most stringent firearms laws.

In fact, this law not only violates the Constitution's Second Amendment, the Supreme Court confirmed that fact just a handful of years ago when it ruled the District of Columbia's gun ban was unlawful.

In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."

The ruling was affirmed the following year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said that citizens were guaranteed a right to keep firearms that were in common use in their homes for self-defense, but that the government could pass reasonable regulations concerning firearms and ammunition.

...Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

New York's new law bans guns that are "in common use" and passes unreasonable restrictions on magazines (try to find a seven-round magazine just for grins).

The plain language of the Heller decision renders New York's restrictions unconstitutional.

In Oregon, for instance, multiple sheriffs have told the federal government that any unconstitutional restrictions on guns will not be enforced:

Another Oregon sheriff says he would refuse to enforce any new federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional... Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley said Tuesday he sent the same letter to Vice President Joe Biden that was sent Monday by Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller.

The letter says politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims in the Connecticut school shooting by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans.

Hensley told KTVZ he believes in the Second Amendment, and he says officials should consider other factors that may have a role in mass shootings, such as violent video games.

Cuomo has violated his oath of office. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he lied. His flatly unconstitutional gun ban law is proof that he has violated his oath of office.

I encourage you to listen to Cuomo's "State of the State" speech, if only for a minute or two.

The speech was praised as groundbreaking and landmark by progressives who fretted for two years that they were fooled by the son of liberal icon Mario Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo, they thought, had fashioned himself a new kind of Democrat focused on holding the line on spending and taxes.

"We are a community based on progressive principles," Cuomo said in Wednesday's often fiery speech. "We must remain that progressive capital of the nation."

Go ahead and listen. Don't worry, I'll wait here.

At the risk of violating Godwin's law, I want you to close your eyes and transport yourself back to Germany in 1933 and imagine this same speech.

The hysterical rhetoric, the shrieking dialect, the fomenting of panic, the over-the-top lies, and the demonization of a large, law-abiding segment of the population.

The progressive movement is at war with the Constitution.

No self-described "progressive" can honestly take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The two philosophies are oil and water.

Cuomo's unconstitutional gun control laws hold no weight and should therefore be given all of the regard they deserve. Which is to say, none.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: What can you do? This.

Easy steps to protect your Second Amendment rights:

1. Join the National Rifle Assocation - by no means perfect, the NRA is the most influential gun rights group in the world. The easiest step to help fund basic protections for the Second Amendment is to join the NRA.

2. Gun Owners of America - a no-nonsense gun rights organization with a strong lobbying presence in Washington.

3. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership - welcomes all law-abiding citizens and offers some of the best educational material about the Constitution and the Second Amendment you'll find anywhere.

4. The Second Amendment Foundation - provides legal action, education, and an attorney referral service for law-abiding gun owners.

No organization is perfect and each group has its strengths and weaknesses. If you can afford to, join all of them. Each one of us, working with these groups, can make a difference.

QOTD: Unconstitutional Official Acts

Unconstitutional Official Acts:

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.


Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

CARTOON O' THE DAY: Ding. Dong.

The invaluable Chris Muir:

I believe that, for many Americans, an "executive order" purporting to rescind the Bill of Rights would be the final straw.

It will be the last in a long train of abuses and usurpations.

It is a Bill of Rights, codifying a contract between God and man. It cannot be tossed aside, modified at the whim of some would-be oligarch, or otherwise edited in Microsoft Word.

The President and every member of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If the emails I receive are any indication, any such official who would ignore the Bill of Rights -- and ignore their oath of office -- will face a political wrath the likes of which will shake the nation.

JUST LIKE LINCOLN: the most dignified, presidential and high-minded president of any president, ever

Like David Gregory, when I think of President Obama, I immediately think, "Lincoln!"

• This morning, without even waiting for a compromise deal to pass both the House and the Senate, President Obama was already ridiculing Republicans. Congratulating himself, he took credit for breaking the Republican Party's longstanding pledge to oppose tax increases: "[This is] one of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple of decades."

• Yesterday, before the Senate had worked out its own deal early this morning, the president held what "had the feel of a campaign event" complete with cheering "middle class workers". During the event, Obama "took shots at Congress and Republicans" and issued "a stern warning to the GOP" that he would not tolerate any spending cuts.

• And before the deal was signed, Obama "gloated that if Republicans accepted this deal it would amount to a surrender on taxes" in a move that seemed "designed to sabotage a deal he allegedly wanted."

As Robert Samuelson wrote in today's Washington Post:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts it this way: "...the United States cannot sustain the federal spending programs that are now in place with the federal taxes (as a share of GDP) that it has been accustomed to paying."

Until Obama conspicuously and consistently acknowledges these realities in straightforward and unmistakable language -- something he hasn't done and shows no signs of doing -- he cannot be said to be dealing honestly with the budget or with the American people. The main reason that we keep having these destructive and inconclusive budget confrontations is not simply that many Republicans have been intransigent on taxes. The larger cause is that Obama refuses to concede that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are driving future spending and deficits. So when Republicans make concessions on taxes (as they have), they get little in return. Naturally, this poisons the negotiating climate.

Obama wants the country to go over the fiscal cliff. He wants the deficit to reach 200 percent of GDP (the course it's on), which means a certain economic collapse.

He wants these things.

How else can he foment a crisis ("Never let a crisis go to waste", in the words of his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel) and "fundamentally transform America" (in his own words)?

I believe we have a very troubled individual running things. And what is even more troubling is the fact that about 50 percent of American voters have no earthly idea where's he's taking us. Nor do they care.

CONGRATULATIONS, DEMOCRATS: An Open Letter

Dear Democrat Party,

Congratulations on Tuesday's victories.

Congratulations on the new tax hikes that will restrain the economy next year as the Bush tax cuts end and the myriad dictates and fees imposed by Obamacare begin. We are already seeing companies downsize or flee and investors begin to bail out of the stock market. Rest assured that your tactics of class warfare will ultimately succeed just as well as they have throughout the world for the last two centuries.

Congratulations on giving us an excellent preview of what lies ahead with your stewardship in the Golden State, where Global Economic Analysis says -- after the various statewide ballot initiatives and elections -- "Prepare for the Demise of California".

Congratulations on solidifying your plan to borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, with no credible plan to address the gap. It reminds me, most recently, of the run-up to Argentina's currency crisis.

Congratulations on successfully appealing to voters with crude, brutish messages of personal gratification, thereby finalizing your blueprint for America's economic downfall.

Congratulations on making Alexis de Tocqueville's predictions of 1835 come to pass, in that the United States appears to have entered the final phase of the transition from a Constitutional Republic to Despotism.

Congratulations on carefully avoiding the biggest fiscal problems we face, from entitlements to a debt-to-GDP ratio that has long since passed the historic danger zone. As an aside, if I were you, I would be preparing your families with near-term (under five years) plans for economic upheaval and possible societal unrest. I say that not because I desire anything of the sort, but because we seem to have reached a tipping point where more citizens want free contraceptives and EBT cards than believe in the American dream.

Congratulations on your historic control of the media. By withholding and obscuring the facts behind the Benghazi scandal, Operation Fast and Furious and the numerous green energy scams that enriched President Obama's campaign bundlers, you have ensured that a clueless electorate can be counted on to vote for giveaways in every election.

And, finally, congratulations on ensuring that no one in Washington -- including the feckless, old guard Republican leadership -- expresses the least bit of concern that we have long since passed the historical Rogoff-Reinhart tipping point of debt-to-GDP that spells inevitable economic doom.

Well done. Enjoy your victories and remember: As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Sincerely,

Doug Ross

Still life with Drudge

Hmmm.

Hat tip: JTT.

IT'S MAGIC! Joe Biden's Brother Wins $100 Million Federal Contract to Build Homes In Iraq

Even better: he has no background in residential construction. Charles Gasparino at Fox Business gives us the lowdown:

David Richter, the president of Hill International (HIL), a mid-sized outfit that manages construction projects, was speaking last year at a private meeting with investors when he was asked about the recent success of his newest subsidiary, HillStone International.

How was it that HillStone, a newcomer in the business of home building, landed a massive and potentially lucrative contract to build 100,000 homes in war-torn Iraq?

Richter didn’t mince words. It really helps, he said, to have “the brother of the vice president as a partner,” according to a person who was present.

The “brother” Richter was referring to during the meeting is James Biden, the younger brother of Vice President Joe Biden.

Since November 2010, James Biden has been the executive vice president of Hill International’s housing subsidiary despite little if any documented work history in residential construction. And if the company’s projections are accurate, both Hill and Biden are on the verge of a huge payday...

...the Iraq project may be the most lucrative single development in Hill’s history.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

When the final history of this administration is written -- with the dozens of green energy companies tied to Obama's campaign bundlers, the hundreds of Mexicans and Americans killed by Operation Fast and Furious, and the rest of the hideous Obama legacy -- it will have recorded the greatest collective fleecing of the American taxpayer in history.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

THERE IS NO REST: Biblical Passages Perfectly Describe Joe Biden's Embarrassing Debate Performance

Proverbs 29:9: "When a wise man debates a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest."

Dennis also notes that Proverbs 30:32 is also apt: "There is one who has appeared foolish, after he was lifted up on high; for if he had understood, he would have placed his hand over his mouth."

And other passages seem to speak directly to those liberals who reveled in Biden's giggling, gesticulating and lying:

• Proverbs 1:22: Little ones, how long will you choose to be childish, and how long will the foolish desire what is harmful to themselves, and how long will the imprudent hate knowledge?

• Proverbs 3:35: The wise will possess glory. The exaltation of the foolish is disgraceful.

• Proverbs 10:14: The wise store away knowledge. But the mouth of the foolish is a neighbor to confusion.


Hat tip: Black & Right.

MUST WATCH: CBS News' Lara Logan Smashes the Obama Administration's Lies About Terrorism and the Middle East

I guess Lara isn't too concerned with invitations to the Beltway Cocktail Circuit, because with this blast she's joined the group of "hawks" (i.e., realists) who understand those who would destroy civilization.

The quotes and excerpts of Lara Logan’s speech don’t really properly capture it the way that watching the video does. This is an emotional speech and it’s unusual because it’s been a while since we’ve heard anyone talk like this. It’s a speech that takes us back ten years to the early days of the War on Terror. And those ideas are apparently a core part of what she believes.

Lara Logan’s theme is that abandoning Afghanistan will turn it back over into a base for Islamic terrorists. And in between advocating serious engagement with Afghanistan and blasting the refusal to talk about Pakistan’s role in Al Qaeda, she slips in the occasional dangerous unexplored idea about the nature of the enemy...

It’s amazing to me that we are still comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam.

The Viet Cong didn’t care what you did when you went back to America. The Viet Cong didn’t fight for an Islamic caliphate. The Viet Cong didn’t fight a global struggle. It’s amazing to me that we constantly ignore … what all these groups tell us every day in their own in their own statements.

They share something. They share an idea. Al Qaeda is not an organization. You don’t have to have a membership card or badge… this is terrorism, it is a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history.

Our way of life is under attack and if you think that’s government propaganda, if you think that’s nonsense, if you think that’s warmongering, you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight.

In your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t. There’s two sides and we don’t dictate the terms. In fact after eleven years of war in Afghanistan, we’re rushing for the exits as fast as we can, not only do we not dictate the terms, but we have less power to dictate anything on the world stage.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker said, ‘We’ve killed all the slow and stupid ones. The ones that are left are more committed and they didn’t become any kinder or gentler in the last eleven years.... We think we’ve won the campaign and they haven’t even begun to fight.’

If you fail to identify the ideological component to this fight, if you fail to identify what your enemy is really fighting for, if you lie about who they really are, I don’t see how you can possibly have the right strategy.

There’s a narrative coming out of Washington, much of it driven by Pakistani lobbying money and by Taliban apologists. One of my favorite things to read about is how the Taliban today is so unlike the Taliban of 2001, they’re a more moderate, gentler kinder Taliban who just can’t wait to see women in the workplace occupying an equal role in society and great economic prosperity for all of Afghanistan and they don’t really want to take us back 3,000 years into that terrible place I witnessed.

And when I look at what’s happening in Libya, this big song and dance, whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest, and you just want to scream for God’s sake, are you kidding me, the last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings which was a prelude to 9/11. And you’re sending FBI to investigate. I hope you’re sending in your best clandestine warriors who will go in to exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil, that its ambassadors will not be murdered and that the United States will not do nothing about it.

Watch the whole thing. And pass it on.

STUDY IN CONTRASTS: The VP Debate in One Picture

This one -- sent in by Redman Bluestate -- seems to capture the unseriousness of the Vice President and vintage media.

On a related note, Breitbart did us a public service with a true fact-check, documenting the top 10 lies by Joe Biden in the VP debate.

VICIOUS: Joe Biden's Greatest Hits

Snapped from an absolutely brutal ad by the RNC:

In his entire life, Joe Biden has never worked a single day in the real world. He's been suckling on the public teat since he left law school. And he's just one heartbeat away from the presidency.

We can remedy this on the first Tuesday in November.

A SIMPLE CHOICE: Adolescent Rule or Adult Decision-Making

In the wake of the VP debate, Whoopie offers what I think is an incisive summary:

They say that VP debates never decide Presidential elections and maybe that’s so, but this one should because once again it showed the stark contrast that divides this nation.

Do voters want four more years of clownish adolescent rule or are they ready to let adults run the nation again?

...Apparently, unlike other Presidents who have calculated that besides their steadfast base, they need a majority of the middle to win, Obama and his Party have written off the political center entirely.

They feel that they can cobble together a coalition of fringe groups [including] the free Obama phone social parasites, anarchists, Animal Rights activists, the Green Movement, the open border crowd, the willfully uninformed and uneducated, the porn industry, the Hollywood elites, the criminal class and sundry malcontents with a grudge against society.

In short, all the elements that the conniving Communists of the old Soviet Union incubated in an attempt to undermine American society and erode our culture. It’s truly ironic that the Soviet Union has long since gone extinct, but their legacy lives on in our very midst.

To me the most troubling aspect of Biden’s childish behavior (laughing, chuckling, mugging faces) was that he was doing it while Ryan spoke of serious matters, like the death of a US Ambassador or our troops in harms way or the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

My guess is that the Leftists' glee over Biden's performance will fade quickly. Anyone who watched the debate will remember only the Cheshire Cat grin of the Vice President during the most inappropriate of moments.

OH, IT'S ON: Open Warfare Breaks Out Between the White House and the Clinton Clan

How else can one describe the escalating rhetoric bouncing between the State Department and the White House, each volley intended to duck blame for the Benghazi terror attack?

White House throws Hillary under the 2012 bus

The White House is throwing Hillary Clinton under the 2012 election bus... Top officials have already claimed the nation’s intelligence agencies did not alert the White House to the growing danger facing the State Department’s facility in Benghazi, Libya, which was destroyed Sept. 11 by a jihadi attack on the 11th anniversary of the atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

The claim was repeated Oct. 11 by Vice President Joe Biden during the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky. “We weren’t told they wanted more security,” he announced. [And] Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for communications, extended the claim Oct. 11 by telling told Foreign Policy magazine that neither Biden nor President Barack Obama knew of the growing danger.

...“These kinds of issues are handling in the State Department by security officials,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said during Friday’s press briefing... Security matters “are decided at the State Department,” he said, amid tough questioning from Fox News Channel’s Ed Henry.

The White House’s statements leaves Hillary Clinton on the hook, because she runs the Department of State.

How are Bill and Hillary dealing with this sellout? Not well, according to bestselling author Ed Klein.

As Benghazi blame nears Hillary, Clintons grow furious

With tensions between President Obama and the Clintons at a new high, former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck, according to author Ed Klein...

...sources close to the Clintons tell him that Bill Clinton has assembled an informal legal team to discuss how the Secretary of State should deal with the issue of being blamed for not preventing the Benghazi terrorist attack last month.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters during a press conference Friday that responsibility for the consulate in Libya fell on the State Department, not the White House...

If blame for the security failures falls to Hillary Clinton, Klein said, it’s possible that she would even consider resigning over the issue...

Klein also noted that the famously troubled Obama-Clinton relationship has "reached a new low" with Joe Biden's refusal to have Bill Clinton help guide the gaffe-master's debate strategy.

That thumping noise you heard was Hillary Clinton going under the bus.

AND BIDEN LAUGHED: Gas hit $6 a gallon in Orlando last night while VP smirked, interrupted and giggled

Operative RJ emails us these photos from the Shell station on Vineland Road on Orlando:

Who needs the Keystone XL pipeline or ANWR? We have wind and solar, right?

Helpful Chart: Focus Groups Contrast the Candidates

Spotted at HillBuzz:

This data is real. Daniel Foster explains the methodology "Meet the Deciders":

Yesterday afternoon, on the seventh floor of a nondescript glass office tower on the fringes of downtown Tampa, I sat in a dark room behind a two-way mirror and watched the one and only Frank Luntz put a focus group of 23 “swing voters” through the paces.

What I learned: Americans are worried.

Of course they are. See "The Five Charts You MUST Show Every Undecided Voter You Know."

Joe Biden versus... Himself

At least they didn't catch him with a blow-up doll. Yet.

Joe Biden, Intellect of the Democratic Party, Just a Grin With a Body Behind It, Goes Off-Script Again Himself: Kisses Female Supporter Full On The Lips

He really thinks he's charming. And I guess he is... to stupid people.

I've made this comparison before, but both Joe Biden and Bill O'Reilly must have been told by Irish grandmothers a whole bunch of times that they had the Gift of the Blarney...

But Joe Biden is just.... I don't know what to say. Guy's giving full-mouth smackers to old ladies on the campaign trail.

One woman, who the pool later identified as Bev Kalmer, of Poland, Ohio, told the VP: "Welcome to Ohio." His response: "I've been waitin' all day to be here."

She said "You gotta keep the chair" to him -- a reference to Clint Eastwood's speech last night at the RNC -- and he gave her a kiss right on the lips. She swooned. Asked if she wants Biden to run for president in 2016, she told the pool: "I don't know. We've got to keep the chair." She paused. "You got that? The invisible chair."

Ouch. Here's some ice to put on that, Joe.

Such a charmer.

My guess is the reports are true: Hillary turned down the VP slot a few weeks ago.

We already know that she's skipping the Democrat National Convention. And she may be plotting a 2016 presidential run against President Romney.

I say President Romney, because no Democrat would bother mounting a serious run after four more years of Obama.


Update: The gift that keeps on giving:

Approaching a table of men he knew to be Greek, the VP said, “I’m Joe Bidenopoulos.”

“Ask George,” he said – unclear who George was, maybe someone at the table --“who’s the most Greek Irishman he’s ever known.” Sounded like Biden was suggesting he is.

He moved on to a table of three women, sitting down briefly, before moving on to one where two women were sitting.

“Let’s dance,” he said to one, named Jennifer, as she stood up right next to him. They posed for a photo before he turned to her tablemate, who was wearing scrubs, and asked, ‘Are you a nurse?” He then sat down and started speaking to her quietly, presumably about nurses.

Paul Ryan debating Joe Biden is roughly equivalent to Steven Hawking debating, uhm, Joe Biden.

Team Class

Via @Slublog:

Related: A new painting by Jon McNaughton.

"Please Joe, Keep On Running"

Is there anything funnier than a Joe Biden speech? I mean, besides Michael Moore doing a Tae Bo video?

I would pay cash money to see Joe give a speech after three quick Jagermaisters.