And leading off today’s Cover Story, courtesy of NRO, two commentaries on the latest lies and libel emanating from the mouth of the man at the helm of the Department of Injustice.  First, Victor Davis Hanson details…

A Divisive Attorney General

Attorney General Eric Holder must be suffering from a sort of amnesia. He is upset at supposed divisiveness and rudeness directed at him when testifying before Congress, and suggests not too subtly that he and President Obama have been accorded inordinately harsh treatment (fill in the blanks why). Aside from the fact that he seemed to have relished the combat with Representative Gohmert in quite unprofessional tones (“you don’t want to go there, buddy, alright?”/ “good luck with your asparagus”), he seems to forget what former attorney general Alberto Gonzales once endured both in the liberal media and before Democrats in Congress, not to mention the films, comic routines, novels, and op-eds that focused on the idea of assassinating President George W. Bush, a shameful chapter in our history, which I think Eric Holder was largely mum about at the time.

But, more to the point, is this not the same Attorney General Holder who once called the nation collectively “cowards” and referred to African Americans as “my people” — not to mention a president who has called for some “to punish our enemies”? All that sounds pretty divisive and ugly.

And wasn’t Holder making his allegations of unprofessionalism while speaking before the demagogic Mr. Sharpton’s group? This is the same Al Sharpton who is on record inflaming the Crown Heights riots, provoking violence at the fatal Freddie Fashion Mart riot, helping to invent the Tawana Brawley caper, defaming and attempting to destroy the career of Duchess County prosecutor Steven Pagones, and with a long history of racist outbursts and threats (“white interloper,” “white folks was in caves . . .”, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”), homophobic outbursts (“We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it”), and religious bigotry (“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation”).

That Holder made these allegations at Sharpton’s invitation and at a time when Sharpton is back in the news as a former FBI informant offering information about Mafia criminals, and whose relationship with both the Mafia and the FBI is still unclear, is, well, again divisive and, to quote Holder yet again, ugly.

Second, Andrew McCarthy asks the unsubtly un-American Attorney General…

Don’t Make Me Laugh, Mr. Holder

Fitting as it was to find Eric Holder speaking in front of a “No Justice” sign, his whining about how poorly he’s been treated compared to other attorneys general, and therefore that there must be some racism involved, is pathetic, even by his lowly standards. (Imagine complaining about “divisive” tactics while sitting next to Al Sharpton!)

…Back in January 2009, when I was trying to convince people that Holder should not be confirmed because he was unfit to be attorney general and would prove to be a disaster, I asked how he would have fared under the Democrats’ Gonzales standard — the “if he’s not dishonest, he’s incompetent” test — on the basis of which they ran Alberto Gonzales out of town. It’s still a question worth asking. If the Gonzales standard had been applied to Holder, he would not have gotten the job, much less kept it as long as he has.

And since a picture’s worth a thousand words, here’s all we need say on the subject:

Next up, courtesy of Townhall.com, yet another sign a significant portion of America is mad as hell…and like Nevadan Cliven Bundy, not willing to take it anymore:

The “Assault Weapon” Rebellion

Bearing Arms editor Bob Owens asks what would happen if a liberal government passed a new gun law but nobody obeyed it?

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed what the Hartford Courant called “the toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year. It required owners of semi-automatic firearms to register all firearms designated as “assault weapons” with the state government, along with any “high capacity” magazines they may own, by December 31, 2013. The Malloy regime expected Connecticut residents to register somewhere between 372,000-400,000 firearms, and roughly 2 million firearm magazines that held more than 10 rounds before January 1.

What they got instead was defiance. Just 50,000 of the estimated 372,000 so-called “assault weapons” in the state were registered by the deadline, or less than 15 percent. That’s still far better than the anemic 38,000 “high capacity” magazines that were reported to authorities, out of 2 million.

Why is compliance so low? We can’t know for sure. After all, the owners of these firearms and magazines refused to register, so we can’t easily interview them. But the theory we’ve heard bandied about most frequently is that the owners of these firearms felt that registration was a forerunner of confiscation, and that they would rather become felons under the eyes of a vengeful state than become disarmed subjects.

The development has left the government stunned and unsure of how to respond, and has driven the editors of the anti-gun Courant into a sputtering rage. The newspaper released an unsigned editorial on Valentine’s Day titled “State Can’t Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook,” and argued that the state should use the background check database to hunt down non-compliant owners, presumably targeting them for police raids and arrests.

We can only assume that the Courant’s newsroom staff skipped American history in school, or they would know what happened the last time a group of government forces attempted a series of dramatic gun control raids in a neighboring state. As I recall, that day, April 19, 1775, went rather poorly for the British Regulars under Lt. Col. Smith.

Malloy’s staff seems to grasp their terrible predicament a bit better than the hotheads of the Courant. Sending 1,120 Connecticut State Troopers on SWAT-style raids against more than 80,000 suspect “assault weapon” owners could not possibly end well. To date, Malloy and his allies in the legislature who rammed through these strict gun control laws largely remain silent on the fact that the citizenry has simply ignored them. What else can they do?

The government of Connecticut can’t threaten the citizenry with criminal charges. They’ve already willingly decided to become felons en masse. The government can’t threaten the citizenry with force. They’re both grossly outnumbered and outgunned. The government can’t offer an amnesty. It would only reinforce how little power the government has over a rebellious citizenry.

The only realistic option is for the government of Connecticut to pretend that their assault weapon ban never existed. To admit it exists, and that they can do nothing to enforce it, would reveal that the emperor and his court have no clothes.

A nearly identical problem is brewing next door in the much larger, more populous state of New York, thanks to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s hastily-passed NY SAFE Act. That law demands that New Yorkers register their semi-automatic “assault rifles” with the government by April 15. While Connecticut is thought to have something less than 400,000 firearms classified as “assault weapons” under their law, New York is thought to have as many as 1 million firearms meeting New York’s revised criteria.

Cuomo faces an even bigger registration problem in New York than Malloy did in Connecticut because many of New York’s sheriffs are in near open revolt against the SAFE Act, and have stated publicly that they will not enforce it. While they have been less publicly vocal, New York State Troopers have quietly indicated that they, too, will do as little as possible to enforce the law.

New York Assemblyman Bill Nojay, a Republican from suburban Rochester, summed up Cuomo’s problem succinctly. “If you don’t have the troopers and you don’t have the sheriffs, who have you got? You’ve got Andrew Cuomo pounding on the table in Albany.” As a result of the common revolt by New York gun owners and law enforcement against the SAFE Act, it is quite likely that the law’s April 15 deadline will reveal an even more spectacular refusal of citizens to register their arms, well exceeding 90 percent.

What will Cuomo do then? He has the option of following Malloy’s lead and just remaining silent. Unfortunately for Cuomo, he’s never shown the ability.

Here’s hoping Dimocrats decide, like C-3PO and R2-D2…

…discretion is the better part of valor.  Then again, remembering the immortal words of Captain John Parker…

…maybe we hope they don’t, and we can get settle this once and for all.

And as the author of this forward from Tom Bakke and Zero Hedge suggests, we’re not the only one thinking this way:

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

“…The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19^th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.

I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.

The question of when to strike back is pivotal to any resistance movement. Turn to violence too soon or without proper cause in the eyes of the public, and the rebellion may lose the moral high ground and the support of the populace. Wait too long, and the totalitarian hordes may be too far entrenched, forcing the rebellion to fight from a position of strategic weakness.

Meanwhile, James Taranto suggests another know-nothing Liberal…

Think Outside the Vox

Vox.com’s Ezra Klein tweets what he claims is “the case for single payer, in one graphic.” (“Single payer” refers to a government monopsony on medical goods and services, à la Canada.) The graphic is a photo of a doctor holding a stethoscope, with the following text superimposed:

How much the average American doctor spends every year dealing with insurance companies: $82,975

How much the average doctor in the Canadian province of Ontario spends every year: $22,205

Then, in small print: “Source: a 2011 study in the journal Health Affairs.” According to the abstract of the Health Affairs study, “if US physicians had administrative costs similar to those of Ontario physicians, the total savings would be approximately $27.6 billion per year.”

So, how much is that? According to a fact sheet from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, total U.S. health-care spending in 2012 was $2.8 trillion.

So according to Klein, a cost saving of less than 1% is sufficient to justify yet another radical restructuring of the American medical marketplace. That’s what they call “explanatory journalism.”

As we’ve noted before, for what these idiots have spent on their purported reform of “health insurance” , they could have paid the insurance premiums for every single mythical uninsured person in the country…and then some.  But it’s never been about reform, rather all about the purposeful pursuit of nationalized single-payer healthcare; no matter who gets hurt…

…or how many have to be sacrificed.

Finally, on the Lighter Side…

Magoo