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.”

When Representative Issa asks when Holder will start holding his team accountable for the mistakes made during Operation Fast and Furious, Holder busts out his attitude and says he's certainly going to crack down on those blasted whistleblowers!  At HotAir:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yu7TYXV_fFY)

Er, really?  The ATF sent thousands of high-powered weapons across the border into the hands of the cartel, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including a US Border Patrol agent, and Holder is ready to act right now against the people informing Congress of what actually took place in Holder’s organization?  Well, it is accountability of a sort, I suppose, but it’s more useful as a peek into Holder’s priorities.

Read the whole story at NaturalNews:

Dairy cow: $1800
Annual feed: $3300
Begging the government for the priviledge of using raw milk: PRICELESS!

Maybe not on the same scale as the epic fail known as Fast and Furious, but already there are more allegations of missing firearms from a previously unknown operation White Gun.

In a complete disregard for balance of powers, Obama went ahead and made several appointments during the break. There is supposed to be at least three days of recess before any action can be taken, with a longstanding precident of ten days. That makes the single day that had elapsed a very thin definition of a recess. But what he wants, he gets apparently.

Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs.

Mr. Obama said the appointments, which he previewed during a campaign-style speech in Ohio, were necessary because SenateRepublicans have blocked him at every turn. But in making the move, he rejected three precedents, including two in which he played a part, that would have blocked the appointments.

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: