I don't know this Jason Mattera fellow, but I like the cut of his jib

Now this right here is a real journalist.

In an explosive exchange outside the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C., security guards for billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accosted senior Talk Radio Network investigative reporter Jason Mattera when he asked the mayor about his strong support for gun control.

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”

Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”

“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

The video then cuts to Mattera walking further down the street when one of the men guarding Bloomberg, identified as Officer Stockton NYPD, stops Mattera and asks to see his photo ID...

One rule for the elites, one rule for the peons.

After all, that's the evil that Statism always devolves into. Which is why these progressive miscreants continually lobby for more control, whether it's health care, guns, unions, education, or light bulbs.

They can't articulate any limits to the power and control they seek. They're making it up as they go along.

Their only goals are controlling you and solidifying their power, not about following the Constitution, not about following the law, not about honoring America's traditions or its moral code or its ethics.

It's about keeping a white-knuckled death grip on power that Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and Obama seek to hold over you, the individual. We are witnessing history here. It is our sacred duty to preserve this, the world's last best hope for liberty.

Racist Tea Party Extremist and Tiananmen Square Survivor Eviscerates Democrat Gun-Banners Feinstein, Schumer and Obama

Last week, a firsthand survivor of tyranny offered a unique perspective on the Second Amendment. His short, powerful speech should be seen and heard by every regular American (drones and other irregular Americans can skip it, it's over their heads).

"When government has all the guns, it has all the rights... Do not give up the fight, my friends. It maybe a small step to give up your rifles and 30-round magazines, but it will be a giant leap in the destruction of this great Republic."


Hat tip: Vicki.

THE DIVERSION: What are the Democrats really after with Dianne Feinstein's gun-ban bill?

There's a consensus building, across the political aisle, that Dianne Feinstein's gun-ban bill is DOA, in a manner of speaking.

That said, what are the Statists really after? Bob Owens suspects they seek to negotiate several important restrictions as a solid start down the road to a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.

...What Feinstein and her fellow bullies want is to browbeat legislators to “compromise.”

... In Democratese, “compromise” is when they demand a dozen liberties be stripped from you, and give the most outlandish rights away and “accept” just one or two of your freedoms being stripped away.

The apparent real targets of the various Democratic bans floating through Washington are:

• Bans of standard capacity magazines

• A national gun registry

• tracking, limiting sales of ammunition, or stopping online sales of ammunition

...Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to compromise away your rights to standard capacity magazines, which are a necessary part of the kit for a “well-regulated militia.”

...Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to create a nation gun registry. Registries exist as a prerequisite for confiscation, which allowed the unopposed democide of 262 million souls in the 20th Century alone.

...Do not allow your congressperson or Senator to pass legislation tracking or limiting the sale of ammunition, and do not let them stop the online sales of ammunition. It serves no purpose in stopping street crime, and only serves to give the government more power over the people.

There must be no compromise with these Statists. None of these laws would have had any bearing on the tragic actions of a suicidal madman in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

But, then again, Democrats aren't interested in what works: Chicago's skyrocketing murder rate is proof of that. They're interested in seizing more of your liberty and consolidating more power in Washington.

Mark Levin suggests that the House of Representatives bring Feinstein's bill up for a vote so that Democrat lawmakers can be put on record once the bill is defeated. This would allow the House to table the Democrats' gun-grabbing nonsense and instead focus on the nation's imminent fiscal collapse.

Levin's is a perfectly sound idea, which is why the RINO establishment is certain to ignore it. Call your Congressman now and demand the Speaker put Feinstein's bill up for a vote. It's time to end this charade and start addressing the nation's real problems.

PLAIN TEXT FORMAT: The Feinstein Gun Ban Bill of 2013

The following is the full overview of Dianne Feinstein's proposed gun ban. There are several key differences between this bill and the original (failed) assault weapons ban of 1994:

• This time around, virtually every sporting rifle imaginable is banned;

• And the sale of all high-cap magazines will be prohibited, period.

Last time around, high-cap magazines manufactured before the ban could still be legally bought and sold, albeit at outrageous prices. Now, if my reading is correct, high-cap mags will only be available to criminals who somehow failed to read the latest Congressional Record.

 Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

 All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

 All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

 All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

 All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

 All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

 

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

 Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

 Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

 Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

 Antique weapons.

 

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

 The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

 Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

o The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

 Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

o Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

o So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

o Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

 Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

 Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

 

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

 Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

o This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

 Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

 Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

 Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

 Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

 

List of Firearms Prohibited by Name

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

In other words, irrespective of actual utility or functionality, all scary-looking guns are banned.

As for high-cap magazines, a father can't legally give one to his son.

Should this bill pass, the stage is set for gun confiscation. Which is, of course, the Democrats' true goal. If they can obliterate the Second Amendment, disposing of the remaining Bill of Rights is cake.

Dianne Feinstein's Scary-Looking Weapons List

We already know -- from the last assault weapons ban -- that outlawing scary-looking weapons has no impact on firearm violence. It turns out that criminals don't follow the law.

But history, facts, logic and reason never stopped a Democrat from stealing more of your liberty. Witness the latest witless proposal from Dianne "Concealed Carry" Feinstein.

Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms during dramatic press conference

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein staged a dramatic press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill with 10 weapons at her side and unveiled legislation instituting a government ban on more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

...the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.

Really, Dianne? Pray tell us, which of these dictates would have prevented a madman from slaughtering children with a shotgun, or an IED, or Molotov cocktails, or hundreds of other deadly contraptions?

Obamacare has nothing to do with improving the delivery of health care; its goal is controlling the citizen's physical and mental health. Similarly, the Democrats' "assault weapons" ban is designed to centralize even more power with the federal government.

Apparently, Americans are too stupid to make their own choices when it comes to health care, what kind of cars they should drive, how big their toilet tanks are, and whether they can be permitted to defend themselves.


Hat tip: BadBlue Guns.

Noted hunter and gun owner Mike Thompson, whoever that is, decries the evil of "assault magazines"

Someone claiming to be a Democrat Congressman from California named "Mike Thompson" got a forum in today's Wall Street Journal. He was there to market a purportedly "centrist" brand of gun control.

His op-ed, entitled "A Middle Path to Reducing Gun Violence", makes the preposterous claim that Americans support "universal" background checks and "limits on ammunition".

Mike Thompson: A Middle Path to Reducing Gun Violence

Remember, whenever a statist uses the term "gun violence", he really means "gun control".

As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms...

But...

...Yet our laws allow people to buy firearms privately or at some gun shows without going through a background check...

Yes, that's right: a young man can inherit his grandfather's hunting rifle without running afoul of the ATF or having to register in some DHS database.

Government registration -- in every case throughout history -- is a precursor to confiscation. I suspect most Americans will have a four word reaction to registration: No way. No how.

The same goes for illegal gun trafficking. Many law-enforcement officials say that illegal gun-traffickers are most often charged with mere paperwork violations...

So when are you going to demand Eric Holder come clean about Operation Fast and Furious, Congressman? After all, that was the biggest gun-trafficking operation in American history, which sent thousands of military-style weapons to Mexican drug cartels and left more than 300 dead, including two U.S. law enforcement officials.

And the Democrat attorney general and the Democrat president both refuse to release the documents related to this patently illegal operation. So where's the outcry on this egregious example of gun-trafficking, Mr. Congressman?

A majority of Americans also agree (according to a Pew poll released this month) that assault magazines have no place in our society. These magazines hold more than 10 rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading. Banning them will save lives.

"Assault magazines"?

Oh, my. Tell me, "Mike" -- if that is your real name -- did the last ban on military-style weapons and "assault magazines" reduce these incidents of mass shootings and gun violence? Oh, that's right: it didn't.

On the issue of reducing gun violence, there is a path between extremes. This debate isn't a choice between protecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about the willingness of a responsible majority to do both.

Here's a prescription for avoiding "gun violence" on the most important scale of all. Let's enact policies that prevent millions of deaths. After all, we have experience with your policies.

A quarter of a billion children, women, and men were slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. Letting any government have a monopoly on force over its citizens is a recipe for disaster.

Which is why the Second Amendment protects the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Tell you what, Mr. Congressman: why don't you find out what the gun-trafficker-in-chief did with the thousands of weapons lost in Operation Fast and Furious before you start infringing on the rights of actual law-abiding citizens?

QOTD: Wise Counsel

Spotted at TEOTWAWKI Blog:

Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News.

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.

THE ASSAULT HAMMER MENACE: It Must Come to an End

This helpful warning provided as a public service by The Looking Spoon:

Rumor has it that Chuck Schumer plans on introducing legislation to ban the carrying of concealed hammers.

THE TOP 5 GUN CONTROL GRAPHS: The Gun-Grabbers' Failed Policies Are Exposed by Their Own Data!

The very statistics and reports that the gun control crowd selectively market prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "gun control" increases violence.

5. Violent crime rates tracked by "Right-to-Carry" (RTC) States vs. non-RTC. RTC states are significantly safer:

4. Compared to 25 other "First World" (OECD) countries, the United States has very few robberies.

3. Compared to all other United Nations' members, the U.S. murder rate is extremely low (and far lower if you pull out "gun-free" zones like Chicago and Washington, D.C.).

2. Gun ownership in the U.S. is literally off the charts, which validates Dr. John Lott: more guns yield less crime (or, as Heinlein put it, "An armed society is a polite society").

1. And, finally, for global homicide rates, the United States ranks on the low end of the spectrum. And, again, if "gun-free" zones like Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City were pulled from the data, the U.S. would be among the safest countries on Earth.

Bonus: From 2007-2010, if you wanted to avoid a mass-murder incident, domestic violence or general violent crime, you'd be far better off living in a right-to-carry state.

The Executive Summary:

Based on the crime data presented in this article — again, all the data come from countries and organizations supporting the most extreme forms of gun control — the gun-ban movement promotes a fatally flawed agenda whose outcome includes:

• More women raped;
• More blacks murdered;
• More people experiencing fear;
• More school children murdered;
• And the individual’s civil rights infringed.

If civilian disarmament is a righteous, caring agenda, why must gun-control advocates manipulate their own data to manufacture “proof” of its validity?

And what kind of empathetic people exploit the occasion of murdered children and a distraught public as the proper time to ask for support of their agenda?

We know precisely what kind of "empathetic people" exploit murdered children to pursue their Statist agenda. We call them "Democrats".


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

MARK LEVIN: I'm thinking that perhaps the Democrat Party should rename itself the Fascist Party

History and reason both tell us that the Democrat Party is so completely addicted to power that they are willing to toss our highest law -- the Constitution -- into the sewer at every opportunity.

I'm starting to think the Democrat Party should rename itself the Fascist Party. Its love of an all powerful, centralized government, and contempt for independent, successful individuals, are traits of a fascist mentality. Killing the long-standing Senate filibuster while in the majority, but using it unconstitutionally to block judicial nominations when in the minority, underscores an ends-justifies-the-means treachery.


Power is the obsession, not societal improvement through virtue, prudence, and justice.

In 2009, I created an illustrated definition of the word "fascism". Read it, and weep for our Republic.

SAY, WHATEVER HAPPENED AFTER THE LAST ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN EXPIRED? Oh, that's right: murders and violent crime went down.

I wonder if our betters ever review history before trying to slam more unconstitutional diktats down our throats?

That's a rhetorical question: of course they don't.

When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.

For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.

Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended.

Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)

...violent crime also declined last year, according to the FBI, and the complete statistics carry another surprise for gun control advocates. Guns are used in murder and robbery more frequently then in rapes and aggravated assaults, but after the assault weapons ban ended, the number of murders and robberies fell more than the number of rapes and aggravated assaults.

It's instructive to remember just how passionately the media hyped the dangers of "sunsetting" the ban. Associated Press headlines warned "Gun shops and police officers brace for end of assault weapons ban." It was even part of the presidential campaign: "Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban." An Internet search turned up more than 560 news stories in the first two weeks of September that expressed fear about ending the ban...

...The fact that the end of the assault weapons ban didn't create a crime wave should not have surprised anyone. After all, there is not a single published academic study showing that these bans have reduced any type of violent crime...

Research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the effect of the assault weapons ban on gun violence "has been uncertain"... Gun controllers' fears that the end of the assault weapons ban would mean the sky would fall were simply not true. How much longer can the media take such hysteria seriously when it is so at odds with the facts?

How much longer? As long as it takes to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

Which is why you haven't heard about any of this in the antique media. Or the hypocritical, would-be potentates in the Democrat Party?

CHARTING A GRIM MILESTONE: Federal Government Now Borrows 46 Cents of Every Dollar It Spends

Is there a single Democrat with virtue who will decry this madness? Is there a single Democrat who will condemn this unfolding economic catastrophe?

The federal government borrowed 46 cents of every dollar it has spent so far in fiscal 2013, which began Oct. 1, according to the latest data the Congressional Budget Office released Friday.

The government notched a $172 billion deficit in November, and is already nearly $300 billion in the hole through the first two months of fiscal year 2013, underscoring just how deep the government’s budget problems are as lawmakers try to negotiate a year-end deal to avoid a budgetary “fiscal cliff.”

Higher spending on mandatory items such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt led the way in boosting spending compared with the previous year, which also highlights the trouble spots Congress and President Obama are struggling to grapple with.

...The government is poised to post another $1 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2013, which would mark the fifth straight year. Before that, the record was $438 billion, which came in 2008, President George W. Bush’s last full year in office.

Is there a single Democrat with virtue remaining in Washington?


Hat tip: Mark Levin.

In a Single Chart: Why Goldman Sachs, Jon Corzine, and the Rest of Wall Street Will Never Face Prosecution From Democrats

Yes, it's. Just. This. Simple.

Hope and change, baby. Hope and change.

Change: "For Most Graduates, Grueling Job Hunt Awaits"

I'm assuming that any college graduate who complains about the job market must be a racist.

...the class of 2012 faces tougher competition thanks to what Carl Van Horn, director of the Heldrich Center, calls "the recession hangover." Young adults who graduated into the dire labor market of 2008 and 2009 and have been out of work or underemployed since are applying for the same jobs as new grads are. The same goes for earlier grads who were laid off during the recession. Those job candidates, who likely have more experience than new grads, may have an edge, Mr. Van Horn says.

In a better position might be those seniors who took advantage of on-campus recruitment programs. Lauren Martinez, 22 years old, will graduate from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., on Saturday with an entry-level consulting job in hand. Competition during recruiting season felt "hard but not terrible," says Ms. Martinez, who received two job offers. Her friends who are graduating without full-time jobs, she adds, have mostly lined up volunteer work, internships and temporary research positions while they continue to search for permanent work.

...a debt burden looms. Two-thirds of students from the class of 2010, the latest figures available, graduated with student loans, with an average tab of $25,250—up 5% from the previous year—according to The Institute for College Access & Success, an independent group that promotes higher education affordability.

Tuition isn't getting any cheaper, so loan figures are expected to be even higher for the current crop of graduates. That means a greater share of those starting salaries will go to repaying lenders, rather than to rent, furnishings or a down-payment fund for a house, delaying financial independence for many young adults.

...even when new graduates do find jobs, their starting salaries tend to be lower than those for their counterparts who graduated a decade earlier, adjusted for inflation. With a lower base pay, research shows they may never catch up.

I have the distinct feeling that the youth vote is going to abandon the Democrat Party in November. For what else can they do but punish the Democrats' intellectual vanguard of Debbie Wasserman-Schlitz, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and the rest of the big government miscreants who are enslaving that generation to economic misery?

You Lying Sack of Schumer

If there's a more malevolent, anti-American force in the U.S. Senate than Chuck "Schmucky" Schumer, I have yet to read of him or her. I firmly believe that had Schumer been around during the founding of the United States, he would have been a Tory, collaborating with the Crown.

Case in point: the Soviet-style show trial Schumer held to "review" Arizona's immigration bill, which -- as everyone knows -- simply upholds federal law and explicitly prohibits profiling.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), convening his Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, vowed to have a legislative response of his own should the justices uphold the state law that allows police to require proof of residency with probable cause... “It is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 different states be permitted to take their own direction when it comes to immigration policy,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court should find the Arizona law unconstitutional, but if it doesn’t, Congress will be ready.”

“Our founding fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government.”

...[Former Arizona legislator] Pearce countered that “illegal is a crime, not a race,” and that the majority of illegal immigrants just happen to come across the southern border... “It’s simply the rule of law,” he said. “Laws without consequences are not laws at all,” and SB 1070 forbids racial profiling, he added.

Plenary power, eh? Which means all of those Democrat-run "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states" will be punished for violating federal immigration law? Of course not, because Schmucky is a lawless hack who is more interested in drumming up the votes of illegals than protecting lawful citizens and legal immigrants.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Arizona's law. Some observers thought Schumer's hot-dogging was intended -- like Obama's pontificating about Obamacare -- to intimidate the Supreme Court.

But what the lawless Obama administration and Schmucky heard from the Justices must have been disturbing.

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them...

...“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point [and] even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of [the Obama administration's argument].

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

When the history of this Republic is written, Schmucky Schumer will go down in history as one of the most nefarious, vicious, and reckless political thugs ever to slither on the floor of the Senate.

Breaking: Pelosi Slams President For High Gas Prices

Well, it's breaking news in the sense that the Associated Press considers it timely.

Remember these golden oldies?

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked George W. Bush for high gas prices back in 2008. Now Obama and democrats are complaining that Republicans are politicizing gas prices...

...Even back in 2006 Democrats were politicizing gas prices and the economy when gas was $3 dollar a gallon and the unemployment rate was 5%... The New York Times reported...

Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.

To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies. "It's a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.

Of course, now that gas prices are at an all-time, seasonally-adjusted high, any cries for expanded drilling, exploration and refining are met with the sputtering Democrat-Marxist-Flat-Earth-No-Growth-Eco-Statist response: "Don't politicize gas prices!"

If Democrats weren't in power, they'd be useful only as comic relief, preferably in a reality show sandwiched between Hoarders and Snapped.

Get Ready For Our Third Annual 'Summer of Recovery'

Tyler Durden asks, "If this is such a strong economy, why does this chart look recessionary?"

One way to gauge the real economy is to look at charts of the GDP, wages, household debt and the price of oil; another way is to correlate all of these on one chart. The [above] chart (courtesy of frequent contributor B.C.) plots these four metrics thusly: GDP/(wages/household debt)/price of oil.

Wait. Just. A second. I zoomed the right side of the graph, like, a thousand times.

I marked the green shoot with a nice, pretty arrow!

Shhh... no one tell the idiot legislators in California: job growth 52% higher in states with low business taxes

Governor Moonbeam hardest hit.

An executive looking for a place to locate his company might do well to consider Wyoming. That state is the most business-friendly in the country, at least when it comes to taxes, according to a new study.

The study, released by the Tax Foundation on Wednesday, found that when all the taxes businesses pay are factored in, Wyoming's rate is less than half the national average. The state is one of three — Nevada and South Dakota are the others — that doesn't have a corporate income tax.

Pennsylvania, meanwhile, wins the dubious distinction of imposing the heaviest tax burden on its businesses, with an overall effective rate that's 45% above the national average.

The study, titled "Location Matters," looked at a range of business taxes — corporate income, sales, property, unemployment, gross receipts and others. The accounting firm KPMG collaborated on the report with the Tax Foundation.

Among the most-populated states, California ranked 34th, Texas 12th, New York 42nd, Florida 19th, and Illinois came in 45th. Ohio, which came in 5th, imposes a low-rate gross receipts tax instead of a corporate income tax...

...A separate analysis by IBD found that states imposing the lowest tax rates on both new and existing businesses produced more jobs during the economic recovery than those states with the highest tax burdens.

You mean stealing more money from businesses -- to fund a bloated, unaccountable public sector -- leaves companies with less money to hire workers?

Gee, that logic is sooo difficult to comprehend. That is, if you're a Democrat or an idiot. But I repeat myself.

Breaking: Democrats urge more dependence on foreign oil. Seriously.

Is there a more malevolent Statist hack in Congress than Chuck "Schmucky" Schumer (which is the nickname he prefers, I hear)?

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) urged Saudi Arabia to pump more oil yesterday. This comes after his party has repeatedly stifled energy production here at home...

Senate Republicans are bashing Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) call for increased Saudi Arabian oil production to help ease prices, alleging it shows that Democrats are weak when it comes to boosting North American energy supplies and jobs.

Schumer on Sunday urged Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to press Saudi officials to expand production, noting that the kingdom is producing well below its capacity of 12.5 million barrels per day.

Republicans are hopeful that the letter provides a political opening to undercut Democratic and White House energy policies.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office on Monday circulated a press release headlined “Top Democrat Senator Demands Increased Energy Production, Jobs In Saudi Arabia Rather Than Increasing American Energy And American Jobs.” ... Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also doesn’t want Schumer’s letter to go unnoticed.

“Rather than approve the Keystone pipeline, the Democrats’ energy plan now calls for the most powerful nation in the free world to politely ask other countries for more oil and cross our fingers,” he said in a statement.

Not only did President Obama block the monstrous Keystone XL pipeline -- which would have helped reduce America's dependence on foreign oil -- but Schumer himself has helped block drilling throughout the United States.

Consider this blast from the past. Mr. Peabody, set the Wayback Machine to April of 2008:

Now, yesterday ... [President Bush] made a presentation on energy and said much of the same thing you just said here; and Senator Schumer from New York went out and responded to it and said, "If we started drilling in ANWR today we wouldn't have a drop of oil for ten years." Well, of course, Bill Clinton vetoed the first time this came up in 1994. We could have been at this four years according to his ten-year plan. He also said something that mathematically doesn't make sense. He said that this million barrels a day that ANWR would produce would reduce the price of gasoline or oil -- I forget which one he specified -- by a penny. Well, that's absurd, because when the price of oil... When we lose a million barrels in the supply, does the price only go up a penny? They're using scare tactics, here. We need resources. We need our oil, and you got Schumer out there saying, "No, it wouldn't matter," and they're misleading people thinking that there's a substitute for it right around the corner when there's not.

They've been saying that drilling doesn't matter for over 20 years now. They're lying. They've been saying it would take 10 years to develop a new oil field. They're lying.

Democrats are provably wounding America's economy -- and its national security posture -- through their defective, Utopian schemes.