As far as Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is concerned, all he knows about Great Brittan is what he sees in James Bond movies. “The evil British government,” he says, is responsible for organizing the unrest plaguing Iran in the aftermath of rigged elections securing a second presidential term for incumbent and certifiable loon Mahmoud Ahamdinejad.

Iran’s foreign minister claimed, “Great Britain has plotted against the presidential election for more than two years. We witnessed an influx of people before the election. Elements linked to the British secret service were flying in in droves.”

It conjures up a comical mental picture: agents of her Majesty’s Secret Service, driving around Iran in weapons-modified Aston Martins, drinking dry martinis, bedding the local burqa-clad females and disrupting the well-made plans of Iran’s villainous mullahs.

Brittan’s David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, denied Iran’s amusing charges with a seriousness they did not deserve. “I reject categorically the idea that the protesters in Iran are manipulated or motivated by foreign countries. The UK is categorical that it is for the Iranian people to choose their government, and for the Iranian authorities to ensure the fairness of the result and the protection of their own people. I therefore deplore the continuing violence against those seeking to exercise their right of expression. This can only damage Iran’s standing in the eyes of the world. The blame being heaped on foreigners is no excuse.”

President Barrack Huesine Obama says the United States should negotiate with these mullahs without preconditions. How about considering one condition placed on Iran before we begin our diplomatic overtures – a display of sanity from their cartoon-character ruling clerics.

With the financial collapse on Wall Street, many laid-off bankers are desperately looking for jobs as the largess from their golden parachutes dwindle. Not to worry, the government (who else) has job offerings for the financial wizards who created those exotic derivative investments (mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps) to put their talents to good use in the service of the CIA.

“Economics, finance and business professionals, if the quest for the bottom line is just not enough for you, the Central Intelligence Agency has a mission like no other,” says a radio commercial sponsored by the clandestine agency on local New York City radio stations. “Join CIA’s directorate of intelligence and be a part of our global mission as an economic or financial analyst. Make a difference in you career and for your nation.”

Interested parties meeting the CIA’s criteria will be directed to a secret location on June 22nd for follow-up interviews.

If the CIA was serious spy agency, they could not find operatives more skilled at destabilizing a nation’s economy than the denizens of Wall Street. In fact, anyone who worked for American International Group (AIG), Citigroup or Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should automatically move to the front of the line. And there is no one better qualified to vet the applicants than the chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank. When it comes to destabilizing an economy, it would be hard to find anyone with better qualifications than Barney. As a champion of sup-prime lending, Rep. Frank, with bipartisan help from “compassionate conservatives” Republicans, pumped just the right amount of air into the housing bubble to burst it.

With President Obama at the nation’s helm, it’s unlikely the CIA is recruiting Wall Street bankers for tasks anymore dangerous than the jobs already preformed by most of the seat warmers at our nation’s annalist-dominant spy agency. It appears our CIA’s “black budget” just got a fresh infusion of Obama’s “stimulus” cash and is padding its bureaucratic rolls with more non-essential government personal.

As CNBC’s John Harwood interviewed President Obama on his economic policies, a persistent and annoying fly kept buzzing around the President’s head. With cat-like reflexes, Obama swatted and crushed the insect as he plans to smash our economy. The feat garnered cheers and applause from his T.V. network supporters. Out In T.V. land, however, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) turned from their television screens in horror as President snuffed out one of their smaller constituents.

“As we all know, human beings often don’t think before they act,” said Alisa Mullins in a statement released on PETA’s website. “We don’t condemn President Obama for acting on instinct. It’s the media who are making a big deal about the fly swat – not PETA. However, we took the opportunity, when asked, to point out that we do offer lots of ways in which to control insects of all kinds without harming them, including the humane bug catcher we sent President Obama. There is even a chapter in PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk’s book Making Kind Choices about how to rid your home of “uninvited guests.”

Let’s hope PETA sent enough humane bug catchers for every member of the Obama family and, of course, the Secret Service.

The media passes off the petty pet PETA peeve as an entertaining diversion. In reality, the freak show that is the Democratic Party has many such obsessive compulsives like PETA’s fly protectors. With so many odd constituencies filling the Democratic Party’s big tent, it was only a matter of time before a few flies got in.

A major constitutional crisis is coming to a head. A potential ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will determine two fundamental issues: 1) do the constitution’s words mean what they say, and 2) does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to nullify an amendment to the Constitution, a document all nine justices swore an oath to uphold?

The National Rifle Association is requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court settle, finally, the constitutionality of an individual’s “right to bear arms.” Since the high court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which struck down a strict Washington, D.C. gun ordinance, many Second Amendment advocacy groups have challenged the constitutionality of state, county and municipal gun restrictions similar to the one no longer valid in the nation’s capitol. More liberal-leaning justices in the lower courts have rendered mixed decisions on local gun ordinances in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear landmark Heller ruling. The battle between the deconstructions and the strict constructionists is about to begin. The outcome will change American forever.

The strict constructionists believe the words of the Constitution are clear and easy to understand. The simplicity of its words limits the power of government by their narrow definition. In short, there is no wiggle room. To change the Constitution’s meaning requires two-thirds vote of Congress and fifty U.S. state legislature. It actually says so in the very document itself.

The deconstructionist believes we have a “living Constitution.” In effect, that they can redefine the meaning of its words as the times and styles change. Buried deep within the document’s words are Penumbras and Emanations to guide these justices in there rulings. There is no need for Congress or the fifty state legislatures to amend the Constitution; deconstructionists on the court are a perpetual Constitutional Convention. In short, since the Constitution has no real meaning, its meaning is limited only by their imaginations.

Nowhere are these two schools of thought better displayed than in the Heller decision. The deconstructionist dissenting opinion (by Justice John Paul Stevens) states:

“The view of the [Second] Amendment…that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the non military use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.”

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion took a novel approach. Instead of defending the Second Amendment with legal or philosophical arguments, he used a dictionary — Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1773 to be precise.

“a) “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”

“b) “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right — “the people”— to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (herein after Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

Scalia’s brilliant tactic was to defend the literal letters in the law so as to defend the letter of the law. It was enough to convince the doddering swing vote on the high court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, to sign on to what became a 5-4 decision.

Now the trick will be to convince sleepy Justice Kennedy that the same grammatical principles applied in Heller should sweep away all the other attempts by lower court deconstructionists to destroy the Second Amendment. I hope Scalia has his dictionary handy.

On October 15, 1962, aerial photographs taken by CIA U2 spy planes revealed the construction of Soviet medium-range nuclear missile launch sites throughout Cuba. Eight days later, President John F. Kennedy ordered the U.S. Navy to blockade Castro’s Cuba and to board or turn away Soviet vessels steaming toward the Caribbean island. On October 22, Kennedy announced the discovery to the American people and publicly warned Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that the U.S. would consider any Russian missile fired from Cuba, no matter its final destination, to be an act of war against the United States. By October 29th, Khrushchev announced the dismantling of the Russian missiles sites, with guarantees from Kennedy that the U.S. would not invade Castro’s island prison.

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced the U.S. Navy would inspect North Korean vessels suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear technology, provided North Korean sea captains give the okay. It seems Obama is only willing to go so far to emulate the brinkmanship of his presidential predecessor. Obama’s Nerf Pentagon describes this policy as “vigorous enforcement.” Our president is embarking on a path to make American military might as “vigorous” (that is to say worthless) as a typical U.N. resolution.

The good news is that the Israelis, at least, still posses a slightly stronger will to live than the average American. In 2007, Israel launched air strikes on a Syrian nuclear enrichment facility. Satellite photographs revealed the site to be of North Korean origin.

With North Korea facing mass starvation, most experts fear its most profitable export is nuclear technology.

Obama finds himself having to deal with his predecessor Harry Truman’s mess. Truman allowed the Korean conflict of 1950 to degenerate into a no-win war. Now the ceasefire (the Korean War never officially concluded) might end atomically if North Korea thinks our Navy’s pleas to board their ships are not polite enough. While we are waiting for North Korean sea captains to give us the go-ahead, their crazed leader Kim Jong Il is close to developing missiles capable of delivering his shinny new atomic weapons to major west coast U.S. cities faster than our Navy can say “pleeeeeeeeeease.”

Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules much of the Palestinian Authority, foiled an al-Qaida plot to assassinate former President Jimmy Carter, now on a Middle East tour to push the pointless “peace process” down the road to nowhere. A ruthless organization founded and funded by Iran’s mullahs, Hamas certainly knows how to protect its friends. And Jimmy is one of their best.

According to a Hamas spokesman, five al-Qaida terrorists disguised as Hamas police officers, planted several roadside bombs along Carter’s intended motorcade route through the Gaza Strip.

Ironically, Israeli intelligence informed Hamas of the al-Qaida murder plot. Interesting that the little island of democratic decency – who is surrounded by a sea of despotic obscenities – should help a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction save a clueless ex-president who provides aid and comfort to death merchants. The irony, I’m afraid, is lost on the world’s moral relativists – such as our hapless former President Jimmy Carter.

He still holds to the old bromide that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Of course, that’s like saying “one man’s Hannibal Lecter is another man’s picky eater.” As I’ve said before, and will again, removing the moral component from the equation makes anyone look stupid.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Carter “did not believe an assassination attempt had occurred.”

Jimmy Carter will never acknowledge that his nihilistic worldview – where there is no moral right or wrong – is a two-edged sword. In the nihilistic nether world of Hamas and al-Qaida, one terrorist’s useful idiot is another terrorist’s high-opportunity target.

The New Yorker magazine released excerpts from an interview with Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta. In the upcoming June 22nd issue, Panetta says, “I think he [former Vice President Dick Cheney] smells some blood in the water on the national security issue,” Panetta said, referring to Cheney’s recent critical remarks at the American Enterprise Institute regarding Obama’s impending closure of Gitmo and the suspension of harsh interrogation methods for captured high-level terrorists, i.e., waterboarding.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point,” Panetta told the New Yorker.

Panetta’s words are an oblique admission that Obama has painted himself, his administration and the nation into a dangerous corner. In an effort to please effete Euro-weenies, the Arab Street and his softheaded supporters on the American Left, Obama’s strategy to hand “the war on terror” over to the Justice Department and the courts, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks. As Obama’s first crisis with Somali pirates clearly demonstrated, U.S. military snipers make far better prosecutors than Justice Department lawyers. Implicit in Panetta’s words is the very real fear that Cheney will be right – so the CIA director attacks the messenger. It’s like yelling at the smoke detector for alerting you to a fire.

As a Clinton Administration retread, Panetta had a front row seat to Clinton anti-terrorism policy, which treated Osama bin Laden as a criminal suspect.

In an address before the Long Island Association in 2002, President Clinton said: “At the time, 1996, he [Osama bin Laden] had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.” Since President Obama holds the same pre-9/11 views as Clinton, Panetta has reason to worry.

It’s the height of pettiness for Panetta to suggest that the motive behind Cheney’s warnings is merely to crow if the nation is attacked once again. That the CIA director seems more preoccupied with Dick Cheney’s remarks than foiling al-Qaida plots is proof that, where Islamic terror is concerned, Panetta fears that Obama is just as clueless as Bill Clinton.

In his speech on nuclear disarmament delivered in Prague last April, President Obama said, “…as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used nuclear weapons, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannon succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

He also said, “…if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

Apparently, the president forgot to tell North Korea. In a 15-0 vote, the United Nations passed yet another worthless resolution imposing an embargo on arms shipments bound for Kim Jong Il’s communist paradise. The resolution was a meaningless response to North Korea’s recent nuclear test.

In response to the U.N., the government of North Korea released a statement: “It has become an absolutely impossible option for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons.”

Apparently, not all nuclear weapons are created equal. The swamp of moral relativism, where our president does a magnificent backstroke, puts him in a very difficult position; how can he advocate nuclear disarmament of “the only nuclear power to have used nuclear weapons” when rouge states work so strenuously to elbow their way into the nuclear club.

It’s understandable that while in Europe Obama, who shares the same lack of values as his European admirers, would parrot back the same nihilistic drivel hurled our way during the anti-nuclear hysteria of the Reagan years. What our current president forgets is that his European admirers had the luxury of holding such childish ideas because the grownup – the U.S. – protected Western Europe with our troops and our nuclear umbrella. The collapse of the Soviet Union, and not nuclear arms agreements, ended the threat of “nuclear winter.” By the way, have you noticed that so much of what scares moral relativists revolves around the weather (a.k.a., global warming)?

The question to ask Obama, in light of recent North Korean developments and his European remarks, is this: “all things being relative, Mr. President would you rather the United State or North Korea disarm first?” Removing the moral component from the equation – distinguishing who is good from who is evil – can make even the smoothest talker look stupid.

That the Western media is shocked the lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won his bid for a second term as Iran’s president is not surprising. That many Iranians are surprised is nothing short of stunning. Did they believe their country’s real powerbrokers, the mullahs, would allow Iran to break the hold their Warner Brother’s cartoon leaders have held them in since the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini? As one of America’s Ayatollahs, Hillary Clinton, once said, “There is no opting out.”

Many Iranians took to the streets, convinced the election was stolen from their candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi. They set banks, tires and trashcans afire in their anger. In reality, Moussavi stood for office only after Iran’s supreme mullahs approved his candidacy. Iran’s mullah’s show a narrow tolerance toward democracy as long as it stays within the confines of Islam’s harsh status quo. This has a familiar ring.

Here in America, the two mainstream political parties, and the media who herd them, work tirelessly to maintain our nation’s political status quo. When was that last time you saw third-party candidates participate in nationally televised debates? In reality, our two-party system is a sham. President Barrack Obama deflects charges that his policies are socialistic by correctly pointing out that he is merely building on the policies of “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush. When redistributing other people’s money, no matter who does it or under what political banner, socialism is socialism. During a recent interview segment on MSNBC, a Republican “strategist” leveled the charge that Obama’s national health care proposals were socialist. The Democratic strategist countered that Obama’s plan was more cost effective than the one proposed by Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

As our economic crisis deepens, one can only hope the average American comes to realize that subtle and nuanced differences between Democrats and Republicans are as insignificant as the differences separating Iran’s mullah-approved office seekers. It’s time to move beyond our dysfunctional two-party system no matter how much it upsets the guardians of the status quo – the mullahs of the mainstream media. Let’s hope the “tea party” movement transforms into a political party for those of us who view the ballot and mumble under our breath, “none-of-the-above.”

The great thing about video war games – besides the realistic graphics and head-pounding sound effects – is no matter how many gunshots your helmeted avatar takes to the head, you always live to fight another day. That seems to be the operating philosophy for Obama and his Nerf Pentagon.

“Our technological advantage is a key to America’s military dominance,” Obama declared. “…but our defense and military networks are under constant attacks. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country, attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed, in today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests, but from a few keystrokes on the computer — a weapon of mass disruption.”

It’s odd that our president, who banned the term “war on terror” from the halls of official Washington, now gathers his paper-shuffling generals to prepare war plans to combat phantom enemies that are more likely to be pimple-faced teenagers hacking into government computers than al-Qaida suicide cultists. For Obama, it’s better to prepare for an imaginary war in cyberspace than get your hands dirty fighting a real war, against a real enemy, in the real world. Obama’s “just don’t do something, stand there” approach to combat could potentially frighten his anti-Bush paranoid followers.

Obama’s new Pentagon Cybercommand, like the Bush program to intercept telecommunications between al-Qaida and its operatives in the U.S., is partly in the hands of the National Security Agency (NSA). Understanding that the similarities between his and Bush’s program could prompt high-pith shrieks from his supporters, Obama reassured the press that his cyber warriors, “…will not – I repeat, will not – include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.”

However, a source told the New York Times that, “There is simply no way to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets.”

Obama struggles to find a war America can win. What better place to fight and win than cyberspace. Xbox warriors will launch attacks against ruthless cyber foes while glorious martial music blares from the surround-sound speakers. On Obama’s virtual battlefield, the body count is high, but nobody gets hurt.