I really liked his show, I'm bummed that Fox cancelled it.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2tC-npvuGk&feature=player_embedded)

It's unsettling to think that some of those in charge of interpreting and ruling on issues pertaining to the Constitution don't think it's valid any more. From Moonbattery:

As a Supreme Court Justice, Clinton-appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the sacred duty of upholding the US Constitution. Obviously she would be expected to hold this document in the highest reverence, since all of us and all of our descendents are counting on her to protect it from erosion by the tyrannical impulses that motivate most bureaucrats. Yet here’s how she advises Egyptians on how to draft their own constitution (Al-Hayat TV, January 30, 2012):

“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution — Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Got your tinfoil hats on? Good. A couple of excerpts from articles I've read recently about the National Defense Authorization Act. What does it mean and what is possibly to come? First from NaturalNews:

Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded..."

Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the "the flexibility on which our safety depends" means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statementhas no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama'smomentary intentions on how he "wishes" to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.

Click through the links to read all of it. Makes sense though. If he was actually against using the provisions in the act, he would have vetoed it like he said he was. Smoke and mirrors. Here's one more:

Super.

Bad news: Big Government has excreted an unread 1,221-page $915 billion omnibus spending bill, giving America another hard shove toward insolvency.

Good news: at least it contains a provision preventing authoritarians from using the money to deprive us of our precious Second Amendment liberties.

More bad news: Obama has put it on the record that he plans to ignore this stipulation. John Frazer of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action explains:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TEVnQwYEXfY)

The Second Amendment won’t be the only casualty of the Audacity of Arrogance. As the division of powers crumbles, we are losing our whole system of limited government.

Economics Professor Jack Chambless at Valencia College talks about how the students of "Generation Gimme" view the American dream. It is certainly not the same dream of those who founded the country.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VxHfYNTrnic)

Seen at Hot Air.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek1uqrwLmQk&feature=player_embedded)

The Hill has a short piece on the SCOTUS case to determine whether it is ok for the government to track citizens via GPS devices without the need for a warrent. At least one justice has an issue with that:

A Supreme Court justice on Tuesday expressed major concerns that the government would engage in round-the-clock surveillance reminiscent of the totalitarian world of the George Orwell novel 1984 if the court ruled in the government's favor.

The court heard oral arguments in the Jones case, in which the outcome will determine whether warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement is an invasion of Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Justice Stephen Breyer questioned what a democratic society would look like if people believed the government was tracking them for days at a time.

"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,” Breyer said. “So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984from their brief."

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben contended that if all Americans viewed warrantless tracking as an Orwellian invasion of privacy, Congress would step in with a legislative solution.