View all posts filed under 'political'

The Left Attempts To Trump The Constitution With International Law

Wednesday, 20. July 2011 7:33

Somewhere, wedged between the reports of the Casey Anthony trial and the debt ceiling talks, there was an interesting story out of Texas that came and went without much fanfare.

It entailed the execution of a man who, 17 years ago, had violently killed 16 year old Adria Sauceda in San Antonio.

What made this case so different were not only the “players” who were involved in this man’s execution, but the “players” who tried to stop it. It is rare to see those in Washington DC take such an interest in a clear-cut murder case out of Texas. It is rare to see the Attorney General and the President of the United States publicly take the side of a known killer.

Why would Barack Obama take such an interest in this Texas case?

First of all, it’s important to know a few facts: Humberto Leal, the convicted killer, is an illegal immigrant who has lived in the United States from the time he was 2 years old. He knows no other home. Humberto has been educated in our schools, has been treated in our hospitals, and has now taken full advantage of our court system. You see, in the last 17 years, Humberto has been given 8 different defense lawyers, most of whom have been funded by the American taxpayer. He has been given the benefit of 45 different trials and appeal court hearings.

Humberto was found guilty at each turn. There has never been a question as to whether or not Humberto actually killed Adria- the forensics are overwhelming. There has also never been a question as to the torture and the horror which was bestowed upon Adria before her death, acts which included inserting a nail-studded stick into cavities in her body.

So what gives? Why would Obama care about this case?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The official word was that Humberto was not given his international rights. You see, because Humberto was in the United States illegally, it has been argued that he not only has the right to his 8 court-appointed lawyers and his 45 taxpayer funded hearings, he also has the right to declare himself a “Mexican National” and receive his “international” rights as declared by the U.N.

The same liberals who are arguing that people who enter our country illegally “have the right” to healthcare, to education, to entitlement programs, and to be treated as citizens (with driver’s licenses and voting rights), are now arguing that these illegals should also be granted special rights when it comes to capital punishment because they are legal citizens of another country?


So we can’t ask illegals for their “papers” or any form of identification if they commit a traffic violation, but if they murder someone, their lawyer can demand that they get special treatment based upon their “papers”?

Is there any logic in the world of liberalism? Does rational thought even exist with these people? How do their brains not explode with the energy it takes to ignore common sense?

The caveat that made this case unique was that Humberto’s defense team, headed by his attorney Sandra Babcock, was trying to keep Humberto alive with international law. You see, Ms. Babcock has been working to get international law acknowledged as a form of justice in this country for years. Folks like Sandra believe that the constitution shouldn’t stand on its own as the source of United States’ law; we must look outside of the U.S.–to places like the U.N.– for legal guidance.

This has been a goal of Sandra’s for years.

From 2000-2006 she [Babcock] served as director of the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program, a program funded by the Mexican Foreign Ministry to assist Mexican nationals facing capital punishment in the United States. For her work, she was awarded the Aguila Azteca, the highest honor bestowed by the government of Mexico upon citizens of foreign countries, in 2003.”

There’s an interesting- yet unreported- tidbit that begins to explain Obama’s interest in this case: We all understand that Obama and the radical Left want to see constitutional law more loosely defined so that international law can begin to take hold in our country, but what many of us didn’t know- until now- is that Babcock has been working with a very special partner in Chicago to try to get this goal accomplished.


None other than law professor Bernadine Dohrn, the wife of Bill Ayers, and the woman who helped to plant bombs in the Pentagon and the Capitol in the 1970′s. Not only was Dohrn a member of the Weatherman Underground, she is the woman who when hearing about the Manson murders of Sharon Tate and others, breathlessly proclaimed, “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”

Dohrn is still an activist and PLO supporter who helped to organize the Free Gaza flotillas which entered Israeli waters without the necessary clearance. While Obama has claimed that he “barely knows” Ayers and Dohrn, all research of their relationship has shown that to be a lie. In fact, there is evidence that Ayers may be the “ghost writer” of Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father.”

Suddenly, it doesn’t seem nearly as strange that Obama became involved in this case, does it?

The case went in front of the Supreme Court– who thankfully sided with Texas in a 5-4 decision– and the execution took place a few days later.

Yet, four of our Supreme Court justices who had sworn to uphold our constitution voted to see international law trump the constitution.

Four out of nine.

Our liberty and our constitution are hanging on by the thread of one justice of the United States Supreme Court.


Let’s hope he has a body guard.


Category:Obama, Uncategorized, constitution, illegal immigration, lsm, political, socialism | Comments (2) | Author: lsm

Obama’s Past And Why No One Will Question It.

Friday, 8. April 2011 7:16

Intellectual Dishonesty: “When the truth is too unpleasant, a natural tendency is to refuse to believe it.”

No matter how clear the evidence is, people can always find an interpretation that will allow them to cling to what they want to believe.

Such is the case with our President. If a truly unbiased man were to stand back and take an objective look at Barack Obama- his past, his policies, his lies, his deceptions, and his agenda, he would simply declare that Obama was- and continues to be – a fraud and a socialist.

It’s perfectly clear.

The problem has never been that we can’t find evidence that Obama is living a big lie, it’s that people don’t want to believe it.

The are being intellectually dishonest.

How do we know? Because if George Bush or Sarah Palin had refused to give up all records of their past, including a simple birth certificate, these same folks would be screaming from the heavens. Imagine if Palin refused to show us her college records, her college thesis, her health records, or her passport. Imagine if she had used multiple social security numbers throughout her life and now used one that had been issued in the early 1980′s out of Connecticut- at a time when she had never even visited Connecticut.

Imagine if she had surrounded herself with radicals throughout her life, people who talked of revolution, people who hated this country and actually planted bombs at government buildings in Washington. Imagine if she had attended a church for 20 years where a reverend spewed hatred toward America and, more specifically, toward the Jews…..

Imagine the liberals ignoring these things if they pertained to Palin.

Yet when American citizens ask a few logical questions about Obama’s past and his qualifications for the highest office in our land, they are labeled “birthers” by both the political Left and Right. Somehow, just asking the question makes people squirm. Why?

Because we want to believe that he’s telling us the truth. If Obama is lying about the circumstances of his birth, then his entire house of cards begins to crumble. Suddenly, we will have to question the truth behind everything this man says and does.

We will have to admit that we elected a “fraud”, a “con-man” into the White House. We have to admit our own stupidity.

Journalists, especially, don’t like to be wrong. Notice how their stories make headlines, but their retractions are buried on the bottom of page 4A. These folks want to give us the impression that they’ve “done their homework”, probing for facts and researching into the wee hours of the night, when the exact opposite is usually true.

Most journalists take the easy way out when it comes to writing about people they like, they simply regurgitate what they’ve been told.

In the case of Obama, they’ve been told a lie.

So what IS the truth? Well, we don’t know for sure. We know that Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, that Barack Obama Sr. was his father, and that his father abandoned him when he was 2. All of these facts remain questionable. I’ll get into these theories at another time, but suffice it to say, there is new evidence that suggests Obama has manufactured much of this.

Obama claims he attended Columbia University from Sept. 1981 to May 1983, yet an investigation by Orly Taitz- the leading lawyer on the birth certificate controversy- has shown otherwise. When she accessed the Clearinghouse records on Obama’s attendance at Columbia, here’s what she found:

Look at the dates on the last line: “09/01/1982 to 05/31/1983.”

He told us he attended in 1981.

Why does this matter? Well, it was leaked by an FBI informant that Obama had spent time in Pakistan in 1981. Once this became news, Obama came clean, claiming that he made a stop in Pakistan to visit friends on his way back from Indonesia where he had visited his mother in the summer of 1981.

Here’s the problem. It was nearly impossible for an American to travel into Pakistan with an American passport at that time. Did Obama get special treatment? Also, there are no records showing that he ever went to Indonesia. There is even speculation that he spent an entire year in Pakistan, not the few weeks he has stated.

One more thing that you might need to know: Obama’s Pakistani friends have admitted to their Marxist/communist ideologies during the years they spent at Occidental College with Obama.

Barack’s passport has been off-limits to us.

The college dates- Sept. 1982 to May 1983- on the above document seem to coincide with the theory that he wasn’t at Columbia during 1981. Where was he? Who financed this trip?


Lots of unanswered questions about this man we call “the leader of the free world.”

We also have the issue of Obama’s Connecticut Social Security number. This controversy has the ability to be bigger and more damaging to Obama than the birth certificate controversy. Attorney, Orly Taitz, has been investigating…. Here’s part of the scoop, according to WND:

Both Daniels and Sampson [investigators working with Taitz] state that in the 1980s, Obama assumed as his own a Social Security number that had been applied for in Connecticut and was issued by the Social Security Administration between the years 1976 and 1977.

Sampson, a retired senior investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, provided in his affidavit an expert opinion that there is no reasonable explanation for a person residing in Hawaii to get a Social Security number issued in Connecticut.

The affidavits of the private investigators indicates Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number,” she [Taitz} said, “so I am requesting information from the Social Security Administration that would help us track down the Connecticut-issued number Obama is using as well as the multiple Social Security numbers that show up for Obama in the private investigator databases.

Daniels, in a previous interview with WND, said the Social Security Administration never re-issues Social Security numbers.

“A person who wants to hide their true identity often picks up the Social Security number of a deceased person, thinking that nobody would ever look into it,” Daniels said. “I think it was sometime in the 1980s that Obama decided to hide who he really is.”

And sure enough, Obama’s SS number HAD been held previously by someone, an elderly person born in 1890 who had lived in Connecticut.

So let’s see, Obama has used MULTIPLE Social Security numbers and is currently using a “recycled” number from a dead guy in Connecticut? This, if proven, is Social Security fraud.

Another tid-bit: We know that Barack worked at a Baskin Robbins in Hawaii in 1975- yet this SS number wasn’t issued until after that time. What SS number did he use during the time he scooped up ice cream?

No one knows.


Here’s the truth. Even if the mainstream media had done more of their homework before the 2008 elections, most Americans were not ready to believe that Barack Obama was a con-man. He was “the Messiah”, a “Prophet”, and the “One we are waiting for”. He offered us “transparency”, “hope”, and “change.” He promised to eliminate racism, eliminate poverty, eliminate discrimination.

Like all good communists, he told us what we wanted to hear.

Some of us could see through it, simply because we actually DID our homework. The majority of people, even when presented with the facts, were – AND STILL ARE- in a state of intellectual dishonesty.

Some things are simply too hard to believe.

An enemy from within? Impossible.

Yet, sadly probable.

go to Home Page

Category:Obama, communism, corruption, lsm, media, political, socialism | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Obama And His Anti-Israeli Buddies

Saturday, 2. April 2011 10:36

New video has emerged showing President Obama’s friend, and former “Green Jobs Czar”, Van Jones, speaking at a rally on September 12, 2001.

The day after the day from Hell.

He wasn’t crying for those lives lost in the Twin Towers, on the planes, or in the Pentagon. He wasn’t waving an American flag, singing “Proud to be an American”, or lighting a candle for those who were still buried in the rubble. No, Van Jones was rallying the “people of color”, standing in solidarity for the Arab world, and addressing the crowd this way: “It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”

This man worked inside of our White House at the request of our President.

Was Van Jones vetted properly?

Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser and an old friend from Chicago, was the woman who hired Van Jones. When speaking about her recent hire, she beamed as she addressed a cheering, supportive crowd: “Van Jones– We were so delighted to be able to recruit him to the White House. We’ve been watching him for as long as he’s been active out of Oakland.”

They’d been “watching him.”

We now know that Van Jones is a self-avowed communist. He’s a “truther”, a guy who believes that George Bush toppled the World Trade Center. He believes in a one-world global government, is a PLO sympathizer, and and was the founder of “The Ella Baker Society” (an anti-police group)– named after a socialist woman who worked with communist groups and had associations with the Weatherman Underground, a revolutionary organization which included Bill Ayers.

We see a similar biography from Reverend Wright, Obama’s minister of 20 years. He’s another PLO sympathizer, a man who preaches hatred of the Jews and American imperialism from his pulpit at Trinity Church. Wright is the minister who stood before his congregation after Sept. 11, and delivered the now-famous line, “America’s chickens have come home to roost”, a strong way of saying that America got what was coming to them- we were responsible for the attacks.


Rashid Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University is another good friend of Barack Obama’s. “Khalidi and his wife, Mona used to babysit for Barack and Michelle Obama. Khalidi was the spokesman for Yasser Arafat when he headed up the PLO and is virulently anti-Israel.

In 2003, the Obamas and William Ayers attended a party for Rashid Khalidi and heaped praise on him. From Campus Watch:

“A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.”

There’s more….

Obama also has a strong connection to a man named Khalid al Mansour. Al Mansour (AKA Donald Warden) was a Saudi agent who, it has been reported, helped to finance Obama’s education at Harvard. He was well-known to the FBI, was affiliated with the Weather Underground, was hired by the Saudi King to represent OPEC in a lawsuit, and was a mentor for members of the Black Panther group during his years at Berkley. He is strongly pro-PLO.

From Newsmax: “Although many Americans have never heard of Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (his full name), he is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.

Samantha Power is another good friend and colleague of our president. She worked as a close aid to Obama during his campaign and was forced to leave when she called Hillary Clinton, ” a monster.” Power then temporarily went to work for one of George Soros’ “think tanks”, but after the election, Barack brought her back on board as the senior adviser to his national security team. She is the woman who is most responsible for convincing Obama to take action in Libya- and to do so with the help of the U.N., not the U.S. Congress.

OK, but where does she stand on Israel?

When asked in a 2002 video how she would advise the president on Israel, Power responded this way:

-“Alienate” the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because Israeli leaders are “destroying the lives of their own people.”

-Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into “the new state of Palestine”.

-Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories.


During the campaign, Obama had two other interesting men on his “Hope and Change” team, Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Both are known to be strong supporters of the PLO. Malley was scrubbed from Obama’s campaign in May, 2008, when it was leaked that he was having regular contact with “Hamas ” Both of these men have strong ties to George Soros, a man who we’ve now learned wants nothing more than to see the demise of Israel.

How are they all tied together?

Ed Lasky at American Thinker has reported it this way: Soros is a man who has supported a wide variety of groups that have shown a propensity to criticize America and Israel; a man who has made clear his goal is to break the close bonds between America and Israel. He’s a man who has also been a key financial backer of Senator Obama’s, and a man who can activate a wide variety of 527 (c) and other activist groups for any politician he supports.

Soros is a funder of the ICG (International Crisis Group) through his Open Society Institute ; he serves on its Board and on its Executive Committee. Robert Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa program at the ICG. Other members of the Board include Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable)…”

Then there are Obama’s questionable ties to Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, and others….all of whom are/were critical of Israel.

OK, so what does this all mean?

Well, it seems strange, doesn’t it, that our President, both during his campaign and in the White House, has surrounded himself with and has been financed by individuals who have strong anti-Israeli sentiments.

Since when did the party of the Democrats become the party that supported the PLO? I’ve been surrounded my whole life by people who support the DFL , people who are strong democrats, and I have yet to meet ONE who doesn’t support Israel….

Where did Obama find these anti-Semites and why is he still engaging with them?

And does this explain his actions in the Middle East? Does this explain why he turned his back on the revolution in Iran while he actively helped to topple the regime in Egypt (Mubarak was a “friend” to Israel)? It’s becoming clear that the Muslim Brotherhood will most likely take control of the Egyptian government now that Mubarak is gone.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a friend of Israel.

And does this explain Libya? We know that Samantha Power is the woman who convinced Obama to get involved in this “humanitarian” mission, but is there an ulterior motive which involves the demise of Israel on “humanitarian grounds” (to protect the “oppressed” people of Palestine)- something she is on the record as supporting?

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

There’s a lot of smoke in this administration. Where is Congress? Where are the investigations into those who surround the president? Why isn’t the House challenging this “kinetic military action” on the grounds that they were never consulted nor did they appropriate money for it?

Through it all, the Jews in America hang onto hope that Obama is simply oblivious to those who surround him, that he will ultimately come to the aid of Israel when/if the time comes that they need our help.

They’ve underestimated this president of ours. He’s not a naive, uneducated school boy, in fact, he’s a very good student of the Left.

The socialist/communist Left. Democracy must be toppled in order for communism to thrive. Israel is first.

America will be next.

go to Home Page

Category:Czar, Islam, Obama, communism, lsm, political, socialism | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Sweet 16 Not So Sweet For Republicans.

Friday, 18. March 2011 21:31

Since I’m not a college basketball purist and the rest of my family is absorbed in every March Madness game, I decided to make the tournament more fun in a way that I could enjoy.

I decided to turn it political.

I looked at President Obama’s Sweet 16 selections and began to do a little research to determine the liberal/conservative breakdown of the professors and staff members at these universities. Using, I searched the list of 2008 presidential campaign contributions and was able to determine how many professors, staff members, and other employees from each school gave donations to Barack Obama and how many donated to John McCain. I was also able to see just how many dollars went to each candidate from the politically active employees of each institution.


FYI, these numbers do NOT include contributions made under $200.

Now I’m not insinuating that Obama selected his winners and losers based upon contributions, I’m just taking 16 of his NCAA picks and having some fun seeing the liberal/conservative nature of the employees and professors at these schools. This is just a small, random sample of the donations given to presidential candidates from our colleges and universities.

I happen to find it interesting that there isn’t ONE school which gave more money to a republican candidate, most giving 4, 5, 8, 35, and in one case, 90 times more to the dems.

We all know that the “university” is a liberal place. We all know that it’s a place where professors indoctrinate our youth into liberal thought. These numbers simply verify what we’ve suspected all along– that when you send your child off to college, it is almost impossible for them to be educated by conservative-thinking professors.

By the way, I also checked out the numbers for the University of Minnesota, just for fun. Barack received 288 contributions for a total of $145, 189. McCain received 20 contributions for a total of $12, 876.

288 to 20.

No wonder my kids come home with story after story of liberal professors at their colleges.

No wonder the youth of today think that Marxism and socialism “rock”.

Not only have we paid for our kids to get indoctrinated, we- along with our tax dollars- paid the professors to do it.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Obama, lsm, political, socialism | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

A Clear Distinction

Wednesday, 2. March 2011 10:54

As Wisconsin continues to battle, I’m beginning to see some hope.

A mere glimmer…

Sadly, this hope comes in the form of divisiveness. You see, as the political Left continues to show us their true colors, a clear distinction is being made between the 2 major political parties in this country. The party we call “Democrats” have headed further to the Left and have morphed into quasi-Marxists. The communists, socialists, imperialists, and union thugs have usurped the democrat party, making it perfectly clear that they stand for strong-arm tactics, worker “rights”, and revolution if necessary.

They want “workers of the world” to unite. They want a borderless, globalist society. They want to destroy capitalism, destroy the fabric of America, destroy the free market, destroy the family unit.

We have yet to see a democrat leader- including our President- stand up and denounce the AWOL Democrat Senators. We’ve yet to see a strong democrat leader or group, distance themselves from the communists and socialists who have set up shop at the Madison Capitol. Instead, they have embraced the thugs, embraced the Leftist ralliers, embraced the signs comparing Scott Walker to Hitler and the socialist signs showing a clenched fist of power.

My question to all of you moderate, ” JFK-loving” democrats is this: Does this party still represent you? Is this who you are? Are you a person who wants our elected officials to run from adversity? Are you a person who wants to give up your constitutional rights for the “rights” of the socialist worker? Are you ready to fight alongside these Marxists to attain a global society-and do you understand what that means?

Conversely, with pressure from the Tea Party movement, the Republican party is slowly- but surely- turning to the political Right. We see them quoting the Founders and the constitution. We see them fighting for our God-given rights, not our “workers’ rights”. We see more and more republicans articulating common-sense arguments, both fiscally and socially, arguments that include hard work, freedom, and opportunity rather than equality.

Which leaves people a clear choice, doesn’t it? Gone are the days when we can rightly exclaim that “all politicians are the same”, when the political waters were so muddied that it was difficult to discern the Right from the Left.

It’s as if someone has come in and parted the Political Red Sea, splayed it right open for all to view. The distinction is clear and “independents” and “moderates” now have a clear choice: A free America or a socialist entitlement state?

Which one?

Most Americans understand the differences between the Constitution and the Communist Manifesto. Most Americans remember Stalin’s Russia, remember the poverty, the mass government slaughter, the conditions in which the Russian people lived. Most assume, incorrectly, that horror of that kind could never happen again, especially in a capitalist society like the United States.

Even Ronald Reagan, the man who fought communism throughout his life, knew this to be a false premise: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

In the end, Americans will rise or fall as a group. We will either ALL have freedom or we will ALL live in oppression. If the new breed of democrats achieves its goal of toppling the rich, toppling capitalism, then we will ALL be equal…equally poor, equally controlled, equally miserable. When reality hits and the money, food, oil, and resources are dried up, we will ALL feel the pain.

Look to history. There is not one socialist country that has achieved the collective prosperity of capitalist America- not one.

Why? Because as Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

So, again, my question to independents and moderates is this: Which side do you choose?

Do you want your children to live under an American flag or a clenched fist?

Go to home page:

Category:Obama, communism, constitution, lsm, political, socialism | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Reagan Must Be Rolling Over….

Friday, 28. January 2011 9:43

Time Magazine has chosen to take the reputation of President Ronald Reagan, put it into a blender, pulverize it, and then pour it down a proverbial drain.

You see, they’re attempting to make a comparison between our revered republican president and Barack Obama. On their latest cover, Time has superimposed a picture of the Messiah next to one of President Reagan, implying a connection, a link, a correlation between the two.

Of which there’s none.

Absolutely none.

Reagan was a capitalist, a man who believed that government needed to get out of the way if America was to prosper as a nation. Obama is a socialist/Marxist, a man who believes that government needs to have a hand in every aspect of society. He’s not concerned about our survival as a nation- he’s more concerned about creating a global government. Reagan wanted to lower taxes; Obama wants to raise them. Reagan believed in American exceptionalism; Obama believes in apologizing for America. Reagan brought this nation together, Obama has torn this nation to shreds.

Reagan spoke from the heart; Obama speaks from a teleprompter.

Reagan was genuine. Obama? Well, we don’t know who he is, where he was born, how he fared in college, who wrote his autobiography, or why his social security number comes out of Connecticut instead of Hawaii. All of that information has conveniently been wiped from the records. We know little about his mother, his father, his siblings, and his grandparents. What we DO know is disconcerting at best. Between his Marxist grandparents and his Muslim father and step-father, we can assume that his upbringing was not that of your average, patriotic, All-American child.

As far back as 1961, Reagan warned us about the dangers of socialism, often quoting socialist Norman Thomas to prove his point: “The American people will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist party.”

Reagan went on to warn us that “one of the main methods of imposing socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project.” Obama also knows this to be true. The difference is that while Reagan warned us against socialized medicine, Obama forced it on us with lies, bribes, and 2000 pages worth of government control.

Despite the fact that 60% of the people begged him not to do it….

Reagan also warned us of an over-reaching government filled with unnecessary regulations that “invade every facet of business and every facet of our personal lives”. These regulations hinder production, cost the government billions of dollars, and steal freedom from the American people. Contrast that with Obama, the President who has hired himself a regulatory czar- Cass Sunstein- to regulate every aspect of our lives without our knowledge or consent.

Ronald Reagan stated emphatically that he wanted to take government “off the backs” of the American people. It seems that Barack Obama wants to strap us each with a backpack filled with limitless government intervention, one so burdensome it brings us to our knees- allowing us to pray at the altar of the federal government.

Oh, and to “donate” to their endless causes with our tax dollars.

Ronald Reagan believed in “equal opportunity”, a phrase which means that the government will not impede anyone who has the desire to succeed, while Barack Obama believes in “equal outcome”, a phrase which simply means “redistribution of the wealth.”

These two men are polar opposites. They have nothing in common- not their heritage, not their ideology, not their gravitas, not their patriotism, not their foreign policy. They even have opposing views on the value of our ruling document- the constitution.

Yet, we will hear every democratic pundit now proclaim that “Obama is the new Reagan”, hoping that if the American people hear it often enough, they will begin to believe it.

Interestingly enough, Ronald Reagan Jr.- aka “Ronnie”- has just penned a book that denounces his father, claiming that his dad had Alzheimer’s disease while he was still in office.

Is that true? We don’t know, but there are a few things that we do know….

We know that Alzheimer’s never took President Reagan’s patriotism from him. It never took away his faith in the American people. It never took his belief in the free market, his love of a capitalist society, or his ability to deliver a speech that made us proud. It never took away his ability to lead, his ability to show strength abroad, or his ability to rally the troops.

Ronald Reagan was a leader, an amazing conservative leader. With or without a crippling disease, Ronald Reagan was 10 times the leader that Obama could ever hope to be.

Come to think of it, maybe Time Magazine made a mistake….maybe they meant to superimpose a picture of Obama next to Ronnie Reagan Jr., not Ronald Reagan….

That, my friends, would have made sense. Two liberal back-stabbers on the same cover.


Go to Home Page:

Category:Czar, Obama, Uncategorized, constitution, lsm, political, redistribution of wealth | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

A Battered Nation

Wednesday, 26. January 2011 9:28

If I hear one more panelist on a show like “Face the Nation” state that Barack Obama seems to be “moving toward the center” – simply because someone wrote him a moderate-sounding speech to read- I’m going to scream.

Bloody murder.

Barack a “centrist”? Where’s the evidence? This man has done nothing but push through far Left policies for 2 solid years, including his final push of legislation during the Lame Duck congress. Barack Hussein Obama grew up a radical, became even more radical in college, won the title of the most liberal Senator in Congress when he was there, helped to get far Left progressives elected to office in the 1990′s, was a member of the socialist “New Party”, taught about Saul Alinsky as a college professor, sat in a church of a radical cleric for 20 years, and when he became president, he surrounded himself with radical czars and advisers.

The man is anything BUT a centrist.

So we’re suddenly to believe that the zebra has changed its stripes? The radical Leftist has “seen the light” and is suddenly willing to negotiate with the likes of Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul?

C’mon folks. Let’s not be stupid.

At what point does an abused woman- or an “abused nation”- look at the abuser and realize that the apologies- and the promises – are nothing more than empty rhetoric? At what point would a Battered Women’s Shelter tell a woman that the husband who has promised and promised to “be better” will never change? At what point should a battered and beaten nation look at its abusive administration and sing, “We’re not going to take it anymore?”

We saw Obama promise to create jobs 2 years ago. It didn’t happen. We watched Obama promise to create jobs last year. It didn’t happen again. We’ve lost quality jobs during both years, pacifying the jobless with endless months of unemployment benefits- which we can’t afford. Students in college are becoming perpetual students, as jobs dry up and they have no other alternative. “Summer jobs”- those unskilled, underpaid jobs that taught us the value of a good education- are gone.

In their place we have the hollow category of “Saved Jobs”, a term which implies that anyone who still has a job should be grateful to Obama and his merry men for allowing them to go to work and pay their taxes to the government- so others don’t have to.

Obama pushed through the Health Care Bill, bribing members of Congress with more of his empty promises. How many of the Congressmen who lost elections in November can now see that Obama was just sparring with them, toying with them all along? The jabs he threw at both Republicans and unsuspecting Democrats during those negotiations were cheap-shots, punches to the groin which brought them down.

Yet now he wants to play nice with those who survived.

He claims that those days are over, those cheap shots are a thing of the past. Now that William Daley is on board- and Rahm, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs are gone- Obama is a changed man…his days of using and abusing are over.

Wait a minute…. Axelrod and Gibbs are leaving to help run Obama’s 2012 campaign. Wouldn’t that insinuate that we’ll be seeing the “old”, the “radical”, the “abusive” Obama back in the White House in 2012 if he wins? Obama’s not distancing himself from these guys, he’s simply moving them around, shuffling the deck so the American people are fooled once again.

Gosh, those dumb Americans are so easily fooled.

Sadly, that’s a true statement.

Americans need to wake up to the abuse they’ve just endured. Their money was stolen to dole out $24,000 per Clunker in an effort to “green” up the country. Their money was stolen to subsidize windmills and solar panels which are ineffective. Their money was stolen to pay off GE, AIG, Goldman Sachs, and a bunch of wealthy banks who had lost money in the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac ponzi scheme. Their investments were stolen when this administration decided to diss those who had stock in General Motors, instead taking the savings from average Americans and giving it to the auto union. Their money was stolen and given to illegal immigrants for their health care, their education, their unemployment, their welfare needs. Their money was stolen to put scanners and gropers in the airports to “assure” our safety.

Yet somehow, the American tax dollars never made it to our Southern border for a fence or extra security.

Obama has taken the American people and battered them with his policies and regulations. He’s declared CO2 a “known pollutant” so he can control it, tax it, and regulate it. He’s pushing legislation that will control our internet, our radio, our communication. He’s pushing for gun control, using the Giffords’ shooting as fodder for his legislation. He’s appointed a Medicare Czar, Donald Berwick, who believes that rationing health care- aka “Death Panels”- are important and necessary.

And don’t get me started on the rest of the czars. Suffice it to say, a “centrist” wouldn’t surround himself with Obama’s hand-selected men and women, most of whom have their feet in the foundation of radical socialism and even Marxism.

Look them up if you don’t believe me.

The punches thrown by these radicals are just starting to produce bruises on our American way of life. The blue and purple discoloration is just beginning to rise to the surface and the black eyes are soon to follow.

We need to understand what Obama is doing. He is not BECOMING a centrist, he’s PLAYING a centrist. He’s merely an actor, a man who will do whatever it takes to achieve his next goal of reelection….

It’s like the abuser who pretends to have changed. He brings his wife flowers and chocolates for awhile, showing her the side of him that she fell in love with. He lays low for a couple of months, knowing that he needs to be on his best behavior to get back into her good graces….and then POW!! As soon as the woman trusts the abuser again, he gives her another left jab.

Obama’s next jab will be in November of 2012. Until then, he’ll be a flower-giving, chocolate-adorning president, one who “just wants us all to get along.” He’ll be the guy Americans fell in love with.

Not the abuser we’ve come to know….

Go to Home Page:

Category:Congress, Czar, Obama, Uncategorized, constitution, ethics, government policies, gun control, health care, lsm, political | Comments (1) | Author: lsm

Dems: We’ve Lost Our Power So Let’s All Play Nice Now.

Tuesday, 18. January 2011 9:10

Who could forget the almighty seating chart?

I remember when my grade school teachers would come into class the first day of school and announce that they had “worked out” a seating chart- and then assigned everyone to a desk. The seating arrangements usually needed modifications within a few days once the teacher realized some of the kids couldn’t be trusted to sit next to each other.

Congress is now discussing a seating chart, one that will have democrats and republicans sitting next to each other during the State of the Union address. Some members- on both sides of the aisle- are promoting this as a way to “show unity” during this “time of mourning for our country”-in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting incident. Senators Coburn and Shumer are vowing to be “seat buddies” during the address in a show of “civility.”

I’m trying to remember….. Did the democrats recommend a new seating arrangement after the Fort Hood massacre?

Weren’t we mourning then, too?

Let’s review: On November 5, 2009, , Nidal Hasan killed 12 people and injured 31- that’s 43 victims of that horrible tragedy, not including their family members and friends. Yet, when January 27, 2010, came around, the democratic majority in Congress didn’t seem to be “in mourning”, did they? This was the memorable State of the Union address where President Obama called out the Supreme Court Justices because of a recent decision that he didn’t agree with- and most of the democrats rose to their feet and applauded in agreement.

The moment was made even more reverent by the seating chart. You see, the Supremes were sitting right in the front where everyone, including the mainstream media cameras, could easily watch them squirm while Obama gave them a verbal spanking.

During this same speech, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden looked like two “Jack-in-the-boxes” as they sat behind Obama and jumped to their feet in applause after nearly every sentence. Let’s see, our president had time to chastise the Supreme Court and the republicans, but he never once mentioned the tragedy of Fort Hood?

I guess our country was no longer officially “in mourning.”

I find it interesting that the democrats in Congress are suggesting that they sit next to republicans during this year’s speech.

My question is this: What’s their motive?…….

Don’t tell me that the democrats are “enlightened” or are suddenly “bipartisan”. Don’t tell me that this shooting in Tucson has them rattled and they’ve suddenly decided to be civil. This is the group that took a Lame Duck session of Congress and turned it into a political war, screwing the American people- and the republicans- whenever possible as a final nail in the coffin before many of them exited. This is the group that held closed door meetings on Health Care, not allowing the republicans to even be in the discussion.

This is the group that sent bill after bill to the floor of the House, each weighing in at about 2000 pages, and demanded that republicans voted on them within hours of delivery. This is the group who gleefully marched through the streets of Washington DC after Health care was passed, scoffing at the protesters and patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

This is the group who spent our hard-earned money on themselves and their special interests for two solid years. Now that they’re in the minority, they suddenly want to be “friends”, they suddenly want to be “civil” ?

I don’t think so.

Americans collectively rejected the democrats during the last elections. They took the democrats and their policies- and their way of doing business- and threw them to the curb. Life-long democrats, folks like Pat Caddell who worked in the Carter White House and Lanny Davis who worked with Clinton- expressed embarrassment at their party’s antics. Nancy Pelosi’s approval rating hit an all-time low, as did the approval rating for the entire Congress.

The midterm elections were a warning to those who serve: Change your ways or we will throw you out.

Now, if the seating chart had been implemented during the Lame Duck session, we could rationalize that the dems had gotten the message. If the Lame Duck Session had been a mere formality, with legislation put on the back burner for the newly elected Congress to work on in January, we could rationalize that the dems had gotten the message.

Neither happened.

These democrats in power cannot be trusted. They have an ulterior motive for every move- and they are able to “sell” each and every move they make to busy Americans who rely on “sound bites” for their news. Luckily, more and more Americans are beginning to pay attention, and more and more of us have caught on to their little “game”.

It seems that the Republicans in congress need someone to slap them upside the head and let them in on the dirty little secret: The democrats are using you. They don’t really like you or want to sit by you, they merely want to mask the fact that they are in the minority.

Hey, Senator Coburn…. Senator Chuck Shumer doesn’t really want to be your friend and hold your hand during Obama’s big speech, he wants to take political advantage of you. If you can’t see that, then you need to be thrown out of the Senate.

Any of the Republicans who fall for this bunk need to be thrown out. Why? Because they’ve become, what Lenin described as “Useful Idiots.”

Useful Idiots. Stupid people who allow themselves to be used by the opposition.

Or allow themselves to be seated next to them.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Congress, Obama, government policies, health care, lsm, political | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Rahm And Chicago: A Perfect Pair.

Thursday, 16. December 2010 8:07

So our friend, Rahm Emanuel, wants to be the mayor of Chicago….

Looks like he’s off to a good start- after all, there is really only one requirement needed to be the leader of the “Windy City”- You have to be a slimeball.

No one is slimier than Rahm.

It seems that Rahm is trying to convince a Board of Elections that he’s been a full time resident of Chicago for the past year, the minimal requirement needed to seek the job of mayor. He’s gone back and “fixed” his 2009 IRS statement, the one that originally stated that he was a “part-time” resident. He’s now claiming that although he’d rented his Chicago house out to someone else, moved his family to DC, enrolled his kids in DC schools, and is on video standing by the President’s side on a daily basis, he was actually living in Chicago.


And what does he base this on? Well, he says that he never moved personal items, things like the clothes his children wore home from the hospital and a coat that has been passed down in the family….

So that makes him a resident. End of story.

OK, there’s more. Ben Labolt, Emanuel’s spokesman, claims that Rahm retained his residency because he “intended to return to Chicago once his service to President Obama was complete.”

Hey, many of us “intend” to move back to our home state once our current job is over. How in the world does this qualify as an argument?

He says that Rahm paid property taxes in Chicago, maintained car and voter registration in Chicago, and continued to pay income taxes in Chicago in 2010.

If Rahm owned property in Chicago, then of course he paid property taxes on it. The point is that he didn’t live at the property- he had no intention of living at the property. HE RENTED IT OUT. And is anyone surprised that Rahm maintained voter registration in Chicago? I would love to see where he actually voted in 2010- in Chicago, in Washington DC….. or both?

I suppose Rahm’s double voting would be a bonus in the eyes of most Chicago voters- he might be able to use it as a campaign slogan.

Here’s my question: If Rahm was paying personal taxes ONLY in Illinois and not in DC, then why? A friend of mine works in 2 states and must prove each year that he spends more time in Texas (where his residence is) than he does in Minnesota in order to qualify to be a Texas resident. The IRS has come after him, making him show day to day proof that the majority of his year was spent in his “home” state. This entails going through daily receipts, airline tickets, and agenda books to prove conclusively his where-abouts.

All we have to do is look at the President’s calendar to see where Rahm has been.

It hasn’t been Chicago.

Why do I get the feeling that the rules that apply to other candidates will suddenly be changed for Rahm? Why do I think that the Chicago Board of Elections will rule that Rahm was “working for the President”- the commander in chief- and that his resident status in Illinois can be retained because he was working for the military- the one exception to the rule? Or maybe they’ll just rule that he was “serving” at the request of the President, but never left Chicago in his heart.….

Anything is possible with this group.

You see, these political slugs who come out of Chicago -many of whom we now call our “leaders”- don’t play by the rules. Last I looked, Rod Blagojevich- the governor of Illinois who tried to sell a Senate seat- is still a free man. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. was one of those touted to become the next Senator, and while he denied any wrongdoing, it was reported that Jackson was the man Blago called “Senate Candidate #5,” a man who offered to pay up to a million dollars in exchange for the appointment. He will never be questioned.

The husband of crooked Illinois congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, a guy named Robert Creamer, wrote most of the current Health Care Law while sitting in jail, serving time for bank fraud involving multiple check-kiting schemes which led several banks to experience shortfalls of at least $2.3 million. Jan was also mentioned for the Senate appointment.

The list goes on and on…..

Rahm is being challenged and interrogated by a group of folks who don’t want him to run because they’d rather see their own crooked friends become mayor. Those who have watched the hearings say that Rahm doesn’t appear very happy at some of the questions he’s been asked during his 12 hour testimony. He appeared to get quieter and quieter as the hours went on.

Like the calm before the storm.

I wouldn’t trade shoes with those interrogators if Rahm gets into power.

Which, of course, is a very real possibility. It takes guts to sit before an Election Board and keep a straight face while you convince them that you’ve lived in a house that is currently rented to others. Whether it’s money or a payoff of some other kind, Rahm has probably already “gotten to” some of the members of this Board. The hearings are a mere sham, a formality to convince the public that Rahm is credible, that he is legit.

Which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Can’t the citizens of Chicago see that in order to clean up their city- and their city’s corrupt reputation- they need to stay far away from guys like Rahm? Are the voters so uneducated, so “name-conscious”, and so dependent on the government that they will vote for a guy like Rahm, simply because they know his name?

The sad answer is yes.

The very sad answer is yes.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Uncategorized, corruption, lsm, political | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Muslims Continue Their Quest Of Sharia

Monday, 15. November 2010 8:28

Well, in the spirit of entrepreneurship, I’ve decided to open a new business.

I will be selling headscarves, hijabs, at a booth next to the flower cart inside of the airport. Anyone who wants to go through security without having their crotch grabbed or without having their breasts squeezed will be able to buy a hijab to wear through security. I’ve estimated that I could make millions off this little venture, especially if I sell hijabs in children’s sizes. Most men will fork out the $15 for a costume to keep his little girl from having a man fondle her crotch.

The hijab will come with instructions to help you pretend to become an “instant Muslim”.

Why do you need instructions? Read on…

Well, it seems that CAIR, the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations, has issued a notice to potential Muslim airline passengers, letting them know that the new TSA standards of “pat-downs” are against their religious beliefs. CAIR issued a press release which gives Muslim women instructions on how to go through security without getting the usual level of scrutiny:

-If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and “sss” is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.

-In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.

-Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.

-You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.

-Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.

I truly believe that my new business venture will be a huge success if for no other reason than that Americans are tired of this schtick. We are tired of Muslims getting special treatment whenever they cry foul. If the idiots in our government continue to allow Muslims special treatment, then many of us will happily become Muslims for a day. Or a week. Or at our convenience.

We’ve had it.

It is easy to see that Islamic fundamentalists are trying to push Sharia Law as an alternative judicial system in America, as has been done in England. Muslims began pushing the Sharia envelope in Britain years ago, eventually gaining success in adopting 2 sets of rules- one set for the English and one set for the Muslims who reside in England.

Can it happen in America? Well, let’s put it this way…. the Muslims are certainly trying, aren’t they?

Residents of Oklahoma noticed the threat and put an “Anti-Sharia” initiative on the ballot. They were doing what the rest of the country should be doing- looking down the road, identifying the slippery slope, and putting some skids on the sled.

According to the Daily Telegraph:

Voters in the state [Oklahoma] backed a measure to bar the use of Islamic and international law by 70 per cent to 30 per cent, in a referendum held on the same day as the US midterm elections.

However Muneer Awad, the head of the regional branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, promptly filed a lawsuit against it.

Mr Awad argued that the measure violated the right to religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The people of Oklahoma spoke volumes with their votes. Are they NOW going to allow this radical Islamic group with ties to Hamas to overturn their will?


Unfortunately, it’s out of their hands. It seems that we no longer have “government by the people”, we now have “government by a lone judge.”

Yes, that’s right, an activist judge, Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange, granted a temporary restraining order against the measure in advance of a hearing on November 22.

Gosh, where have we seen these activist judges pop up before? Oh, that’s right, a lone judge overturned Arizona’s right to defend itself from drug cartels and other illegal immigrants. A lone judge overturned the will of Californians to keep marriage between one man and one woman. A lone judge overturned banning gays in the military.

Maybe that’s why George Soros and group of evil do-gooders are so hell-bent on getting their hands on our judges. They’d like nothing better than to be able to overturn the will of the people on each and every issue that they find offensive, discriminatory, capitalist, religious, or constitutional.

Sharia Law is NOT religious, it is political. The entire purpose of a group like CAIR is to get two sets of rules in America, one for Muslims and one for the rest of us. They already have pleaded successfully to get special privileges in the Health Care Law, in Charter schools, in banks (they don’t believe in interest), and with prayer and foot baths in our public schools. They’ve fought to see terrorists tried in civilian court rooms and continue the push to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

Are we NOW going to actually give special treatment to Muslims in airports? These are the folks who have been responsible for EVERY terror-related incident in our airplanes in the past 30 years.

Are we stupid?

This is no longer about political correctness, this is about something else.

Read the Tea Leaves, folks….. something ain’t right. Look at what just happened in Oklahoma…..something ain’t right. Look at what happens when someone posts a cartoon about Mohammad…..something ain’t right. Look at the way Muslims have pushed PRAYER into our schools and fought to get Christmas out….something ain’t right.

This is a fight for Sharia. Oklahoma could see it coming and had the foresight to try to nip it.

The Muslim radicals don’t like to lose

… and they rarely do.

Scary stuff.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Islam, Uncategorized, government policies, lsm, political, terrorism | Comment (0) | Author: lsm