No Fly / No Buy?

Democrats want us to use the "No Fly" terrorist watch list to keep jihadis from buying weapons. They are half right.

Everyone agrees there absolutely must be a way to prevent jihadis, mental incompetents, criminals, etc. from buying weapons.  The problem is the current No Fly list is inconsistent with the constitution. Democrats like it that way.  Anyone can end up on that list and there is no way of tracing how they got there.  The people are not notified before being put on the list, so they only find out when trying to fly somewhere.  The list is not biometric and therefore subject to error.     Once on the list it is an Orwellian Kafkaesque nightmare to get off the list.  And the list could be politicized. Yes, the list could be politicized.

Sound familiar?

This is exactly like the IRS BOLO (be on the lookout) watch list which targeted Tea Party, Christian, conservative, and Republican non-profits that applied for tax exempt status.  Democrats politicized the IRS and used their BOLO list to keep conservative groups from raising money for the last few election cycles.  It was perhaps the most chilling abuse of government power in my lifetime and no one, including the president, has paid a price for it legally or politically.  

Republicans can be 100% certain that's exactly how a No Fly / No Buy list would work under another radical president.  Outspoken conservatives, constitutionalists, religious leaders, free marketers, NRA members, Bill of Rights advocates, etc. would soon find themselves stripped of their rights and unable to fly.

Fix the list.  Make it biometric.  Make it constitutional.  Apply due process.  Then use it to stop terrorists.

Watch Trey Gowdy make the due process case in 2015: (it's actually quite brilliant!)




One caveat:  Gowdy asks "Can you think of another constitutional right that is first chilled and then when you find out it's chilled you must then petition the government to get it back?"  He doesn't mention it, but this is exactly how the second amendment currently works.  It wasn't written that way, but that is how it has evolved and that is, I believe, it's major flaw.  (Details to follow...)    

Dude, Benghazi Still Matters!

(Originally posted May 7, 2014)

According to the “Obama-Is-Awesome” crowd, Benghazi doesn’t matter.  It’s old news, the election’s over, Fox is the only network that cares, nothing can bring back those who died, it’s all about politics, what difference does it make, move on dot org, let’s focus on jobs, look, the Koch brothers, and go Hillary 2016! 

Dude, Benghazi still matters.  Some are calling the Ben Rhodes email a smoking gun.  Yes it is, but not just for what it says.  The Ben Rhodes email proves illegal activity on the part of the Obama Administration.  Remember, this email was part of a previous subpoena but was withheld by the administration.  A judge forced its release as part of another subpoena from a private lawsuit.  At this rate there could be hundreds of such documents. This renders all previous hearings and investigations null and void.  It is abundantly clear that there has been a twenty-month campaign by the Obama administration to stonewall and cover-up the truth.  Innocent parties don’t behave this way.  And it is illegal to ignore a subpoena.

The content of the withheld email along with recent testimony contradicts everything the administration has been telling us.  They were involved in pushing the YouTube video story.  They did edit the talking points.  They did know an al Qaeda affiliate called Ansar al-Sharia was responsible.  They knew there was no demonstration about a video in Benghazi.

Moreover, they have never revealed why requested security was denied and who was responsible.  They have never told us why Chris Stevens and the CIA were in Benghazi.  They have never explained Barack Obama’s whereabouts during the attack and involvement in the decision not to attempt a rescue.  They still have not brought justice to the murderers - no one has been captured or punished - despite several journalists being able to locate and interview the perpetrators.  A filmmaker was jailed for a full year as a result of this alleged deception.  $70,000 in taxpayer funds was spent on ads in Muslim countries to apologize for a YouTube video. 

The Presidential oath of office begins with the line “I do solemnly swear to faithfully execute the Office of The President…”  The definition of faithfully is “in a manner that is true to the facts…”  Just in recent history Richard Nixon lost his job because he did not act in a manner true to the facts.  Bill Clinton was impeached for the same offense.  No one died in either case.  Did Barack Obama know the truth about Benghazi and then lie to the American people to cover-up his incompetence in the face of a re-election campaign?  This matters, and Presidents have lost their jobs over it. 

The second line of the Presidential oath regards the obligation to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…”  If the YouTube video was a deception to cover-up incompetence, then jailing a filmmaker to support the deception clearly violates the Constitution.  If the video was a deception, then the $70,000 spent on running ads in Muslim countries was a theft of taxpayer funds for purposes of winning an election. 

Hillary Clinton aspires to swearing the same oath as Barack Obama.  She swore a similar oath as Secretary of State. 

Dude, Benghazi still matters, and learning the truth is the right thing to do.

(UPDATE:  Since 5/7/14 thousands of illegally hidden emails have been discovered pertaining to this matter.  There are still thousands more illegally withheld as part of the stonewall put up by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  What they are hiding is the subject of these hearings, and it should be.)