View all posts filed under 'constitution'

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

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

President “Flipper”.

Sunday, 27. February 2011 10:30

When Mitt Romney changed his stance on abortion, cries of “flip-flopper” ruled the day. It didn’t matter that the man only “flipped”- he never “flopped”- what mattered is that he suddenly had a big, Achilles heel.

There’s a chance that Romney will face Barack Obama in a 2012 presidential showdown- a duel that would anger many conservative republicans who are skeptical of the ex-governor of Massachusetts. Regardless, if the two go head to head in a battle for the presidency, it will be interesting to watch the democrats- and the media- continue their chants of “flip-flopper” whenever Romney enters a debate.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, has flipped like Barack Obama.

No one.

When Barack ran in the primary against Hillary Clinton, he made it “perfectly clear” that Hillary’s “mandated” health system was not the way to go. He claimed that her plan “went too far” and that we couldn’t “require” Americans to purchase health insurance- in fact, in Barack’s words, “Forcing the uninsured to buy insurance is like forcing the homeless to buy homes.”

Michael Cooper of the New York Times described their differences this way:

Mrs. Clinton’s plan would require all Americans to get coverage and would provide subsidies to make it more affordable. Mr. Obama’s plan would require only children to have coverage; his plan would require employers to provide coverage or contribute to a new public program that would make insurance more affordable to people not covered by their jobs or by the government.

The main quantitative difference between the three main Democratic front runners, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, is that only Senator Obama’s plan does not mandate care (requiring coverage) for everyone

Two years later, Barack Obama flipped as he forced mandated health care down the throats of non-compliant Americans.

Barack was also “perfectly clear” on his stance on marriage. He sat across the table from Reverend Rick Warren of “A Purpose Driven Life” fame, and said that he believed the term “marriage” meant the union of one man and one woman.

Two years later, Barack is ignoring constitutional law (as any good constitutional lawyer would) and is telling his justice department to simply ignore the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. This law, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years, was signed by President Clinton in 1996.

So our President is ordering the DOJ to ignore the law?….

While Newt Gingrich didn’t exactly call for Barack’s impeachment, he was emphatic that this was a “clear dereliction of duty”, saying that Barack “is not a one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

Plain and simple, Barack flipped on marriage.

He’s also flipped on the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that he rallied against when running for president. He recently signed a one year extension of this controversial bill.

He told the American public that he would shut down Gitmo “within a year” of his election. Two years later, Gitmo remains open.

As a Senator, Barack voted against funding the Iraqi war, but now takes credit for its success. He- and his buddies at rallied against General Petraeus, claiming the general was a “war-monger”, yet when things got tough in Afghanistan, Barack called General Petraeus and begged him to bail us out, trumpeting words of praise for the general.

Without one word of apology.

Flip, flip, flip, and flip.

Democrats cheered as Barack called for the end of tax cuts for the rich. In December, he signed an extension of the “Bush tax cuts”.


As a candidate, Barack Obama referred to Reverend Wright as his mentor, “a man I couldn’t disown any more than I could disown the black community or my own grandmother.” Weeks later, when it became politically expedient, Barack completely disowned the good Reverend, claiming that in 20 years of “church-going”, he never heard Wright spew hatred toward Americans and Jews.

Flip…or lie?

He promised us transparency, promised us that he would give us 3 full days to read any bill before it was passed. He promised to reach across the aisle and “work with” republicans in creating legislation.

Instead, we saw republicans shut out of meetings, shut out of discussions, and told to take a seat in the back of the bus. 2000 page bills were thrown before them in the dark of the night, with irrational expectations that they would vote on them within a few hours.


Candidate Obama told us that he supported the Second Amendment. He also told us that a questionnaire he answered when he ran for State Senate of Illinois back in 1996, a form that asked “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” – to which Barack answered “Yes”- was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who “unintentionally mischaracterized his position,” and didn’t reflect Barack’s true beliefs.

His campaign manager didn’t know his position on gun control? How odd….

After the Tucson shooting,David Axlerod- adviser to President Obama- promised Obama will “engage” on the gun-control issue in due time, claiming that it’s on Obama’s “to do list”.

Watch for another flip.

There’s more, so much more. There are days where Obama says one thing on camera and then does the opposite an hour later. It’s mind-boggling- and frustrating- for those of us who are interested in the truth when we watch the media complicit in the lies, half-truths, and repeated flips in his position.

They’d rather tell Americans to concentrate on Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion or Sarah Palin’s facebook page.

If America continues on its current course- where we will crash and burn- we have no one to blame more than the “three-letter foes” who have harmed our country more than any insurgence of the enemy ever could: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the NYT.

Obama knows he has these news sources on his side. Without them, he would be nothing….NOTHING.

A few tough interviews, a little investigation would have exposed our president long ago.

The enemy within is alive and well.

Who would have thought that this “enemy” would have the smiling face of Katie Couric, the softness of Diane Sawyer, or the All-American good looks of Anderson Cooper?…..

go to Home Page:

Category:Obama, constitution, government policies, gun control, health care, lsm | Comments (1) | Author: lsm

Shariah and America Cannot Coexist.

Tuesday, 8. February 2011 8:50

In June of 2009, Barack Obama stood on Egyptian ground and delivered a message to the Egyptian people in a speech titled, “A New Beginning.”

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.


Do Americans and Muslims share the same principles of justice?

Do both preach peace and tolerance of those who believe differently than they do?

Do we share the principle of dignity toward all human beings?

If the majority of Muslims are peaceful, then where are their cries of outrage when they see members of their own religion committing these acts? Why don’t they speak out against the stonings, the lashings, the honor killings, the beheadings, the oppression of women and the killing of gays? Where were they after September 11th, when Islamic terrorists murdered over 2000 Americans in a series of terrorist acts carried out in the name of Allah? Why didn’t they collectively speak out when Nadal Hussan killed 14 people at Fort Hood in the name of Allah? Why didn’t they condemn the shoe bomber, the panty bomber, the Lockerbie bomber, and all of the other Islamic terrorists who have tried to kill Americans?

Silence speaks volumes.

Wafa Sultan, a woman who lived for 30 years under the rule of Shariah and now lives in the United States, will tell you why the moderate Muslims stay silent. She will tell you why practicing Muslims will not denounce their fellow, radical Muslims. Watch as Wafa courageously speaks the truth about this “religion of peace”.

Having studied the Koran as a child, President Obama should know better than any of us the real “truth”–that Islam and America ARE exclusive, that Islam and America cannot co-exist. It’s time for those of us who love our country to understand that Shariah and the American constitution cannot live in harmony.

If we are to protect the freedom that comes with the American constitution, then we must not allow Shariah to get a foothold here. We must start NOW, while the population of radical Muslims in America is small. We must stop allowing special privileges- school prayer in public school, special prayer time in the work place, Shariah-based financing in banks, footbaths in public universities. We must not allow the Muslims to use their minority status and their bullying tactics to usurp our rule of law.

America is OUR country. It was founded upon OUR rules, OUR values, OUR morals. Americans believe in freedom, not oppression.

As a Muslim, you have every right to immigrate into our country and assimilate. That means you become one of us. You abide by our constitution. You abide by our system of justice. Anyone who comes into this country with the intent to destroy our American values should be sent back home or be held for treason.


Go to Home Page:

Category:Islam, Obama, constitution, lsm | Comments (1) | 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

While Obama Plays “The Moderate”, Who’s Running The Country?

Monday, 24. January 2011 8:52

“There is no liberty without dependency.”- Cass Sunstein

Mr. Sunstein, as you probably will remember, is our “Regulatory Czar”, a man with a million powers of regulation who has the ability to radically change things in the United States with just the wave of his hand, or the stroke of a pen. You see, when President Obama can’t get his radical agenda through Congress, he simply turns to his buddy, Cass, to do the dirty work for him by throwing out a new regulation or two.

It’s just so much easier than dealing with 535 members of the House and Senate.

Mr. Sunstein is a radical thinker. Like all of Obama’s hand-picked czars, he comes from the Marxist, socialist, SDS, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky environment which says that the government needs to have power over the people. He views humans as stupid “Homer Simpson-like” people who need someone to take them by the hand and run their lives for them. He has not been shy about sharing his radical thoughts on gun control, animal rights, and human rights- none of which seem to be even slightly related to the constitution.

For example, Mr. Sunstein believes that government should control all the guns.

Strange that a man who has the ability to dictate regulations without legislation- like controlling the manufacturing of guns and ammo- has been appointed by President Obama- who has always professed to be pro 2nd amendment. Doesn’t that seem odd….?

Actually, nothing seems “odd” in Obama’s world anymore.

“We ought to ban hunting”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

“[A]lost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. ”
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”

Cass believes that animals have a right to get a lawyer and sue humans. Imagine a world where the surviving “family” of a dead deer has the right to be compensated for the wrongful hunting death of their loved one, or a dog having the right to sue its owner because it lives in a kennel outside the confines of a warm house. It’s easy to imagine lawyers all over the U.S. licking their chops to become a part of that lucrative mess.

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
- 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

Oh, and did I mention that Cass believes the government needs to control the internet and the radio? He is a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine- the controversial policy which demands equal time to both sides of political issues- knowing it would shut down talk radio as we know it. He also believes that there needs to be a mandatory “cooling off period” before you’re allowed to send a nasty email to someone. The government would look for certain words or a nasty tone in your email and make you wait 24 hours before sending it.

I swear.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
-Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book, 2.0 (page 137).

We now hear rumors of legislation out of Colorado which will make Mr. Sunstein smile from ear to ear. You see, Sunstein holds the belief that humans do not have the right to their own bodies after they die. He espouses that the government should be allowed to take the organs from dead- or brain dead- folks without the consent of the individual or family members.

Colorado may become the first state to grant Cass his wish.

There was legislation introduced last week that would “change the process for renewing drivers licenses and ID cards so applicants are assumed to be organ and tissue donors unless they initial a statement that says they want to opt out.

If you don’t read- or can’t read- the fine print, it is assumed that you want the state to control your organs.

Proponents say that this would increase the number of “donations.”


…except I’m not sure we could continue to call them “donations”.

Folks against this legislation believe that we should have the right to control our bodies- and our organs- unless WE sign that right away. They believe this legislation is “coercive.”

No kidding.

Here’s the scary part: Once legislation sees the light of day, it is merely a matter of time before it comes around again. The first introduction is just to get the idea into the heads of people, to lose the natural reaction of “Oh my!”. Once the panic is calmed, the legislation is introduced again, but this time under the guise of “helping people”. It is only a matter of time before the public accepts this argument and votes away their rights.

We see it all the time.

Mr. Sunstein is in the backround, happy to help Colorado in any way he can. There’s nothing he likes more than the thought of controlling- I mean helping- ignorant Americans like us.

While Obama is pretending to move to the center, we must understand that the folks he has in place, the czars he has appointed- like Sunstein- are not moving anywhere. Their radical, Leftist agenda will not waver one iota.

These czars are continuing Obama’s dirty work behind the scenes….so he can pretend to be a “moderate” and get himself re-elected.

We’re in for two years of a well-scripted production, one in which most of the folks pushing this country to the Left have not been elected, not been ratified, and not been vetted. We don’t even know most of their names….

We’re about to be ruled and regulated by about 36 czars- men and women with the ideological make-up of Cass Sunstein.

Scary stuff.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Congress, Czar, Obama, Uncategorized, constitution, lsm | Comment (0) | Author: lsm

Free Speech Comes In Many Shapes And Sizes

Saturday, 4. December 2010 9:57

Did you see the guy in Idaho who built a snowman in his front yard- one that looked an awful lot like a KKK member?

Yup, it was all there, the white robe, the pointy hat, the noose…..

My first impression was to gasp.

I felt a similar reaction when I saw the video of the New Black Panthers at the election place in Philadelphia 2 years ago. They were dressed in black, had on black berets, night sticks in hand….. The only difference between the snowman and the Black Panthers is that the Panthers were REAL and they were intimidating voters, not just physically, but verbally.

The snowman was in a private yard and didn’t speak.

I wonder how Eric Holder feels about the snowman? My gut feeling?….he wouldn’t like it.

The County Sheriffs weren’t too pleased, either, and they gave the “artist”, a guy named Mark, a little visit. It seems that there is a statute in their county that disallows nooses, so Mark was forced to take the noose off of his sculpture.

Let me be clear. This “Mark” guy sounds like a loony-bird. He has a history of doing crazy things like hanging offensive flags in his yard and handing out bullet casings to young children on Halloween. He is not your perfect neighbor. But in a world where our government condones Black Panthers and their night sticks at polling places, can we really press charges against a man who wants to build an offensive snowman in his yard?

Isn’t it just “art”? Liberals are always defending offensive “art”- like the “Piss Christ” exhibit of the 1980′s, the one that depicted a crucifix in the artist’s own urine and won a $10,000 prize from the National Endowment of the Arts. Or how about the offensive piece of “art” which depicted the Virgin Mary in cow dung? Catholics were told to “suck it up” on that one- the artist had every right to depict Mary however he wanted.

There’s been more. A recent exhibit in the Smithsonian which received an incredible amount of publicity before it was removed, showed another crucifix, this one covered in ants.

This, folks, is our tax-payer dollars at work.

At least the KKK snowman didn’t cost us anything and wasn’t given an award by the National Endowment of the Arts.

Here’s another angle: Maybe Mark was merely making a tribute to the late Senator Robert Byrd, a man who wore the Klan hood and was praised at his funeral by Bill Clinton as a great American. You see, according to Clinton, Byrd was “just a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, he was trying to get elected.”

He was trying to get elected so it was OK for him to wear the hood and recruit others to this racist cause?

Read that again.

Maybe Mark should run for mayor.

Most of us would like to see hate removed from the world. But I’d rather see a KKK snowman standing tall in someone’s private yard than watch our government come in an knock down our freedom of speech brick by brick- snowman by snowman.

Those who live in Idaho, drive by the KKK snowman with your kids and show them what freedom of speech can look like. It’s not always pretty, not always politically correct, not always easy to see, but it’s American….and it’s essential if we want this country to survive.

We, as taxpayers, don’t have to fund it, but when it’s on a man’s private land, we have to respect it.



Category:Sarcastic, constitution, lsm | Comments (58) | Author: lsm

The Mosque: To Build Or Not To Build

Monday, 16. August 2010 7:41

While there are many things in life which we have a right to do; there are also many of those things which are not right.

We have a right to go to a ballgame and stand up the entire game, keeping those behind you from seeing the game.

In most communities, we have a right to paint our house neon yellow with purple trim or to let our lawn grow to an unsightly level.

But a little thing called “morality” keeps us from doing those things. We know that our actions affect others, and to live peacefully in this world, we must, at times, think outside of our “rights” and do what is “right.”

The same logic needs to be used when it comes to the building of the mosque, the controversial structure which may go up across the street from the World Trade Center bombing site. Do the Muslims have the constitutional right to build a mosque at this site? Yes, they do. Should they use this constitutional right, dismissing the cries from Americans all over the United States who feel that this is a disrespectful act and a slap across the face of those who lost loved ones on 9/11?

Of course not.

Why? Because it isn’t right. There is absolutely no reason that this mosque can not be built in another spot which is less controversial. “Keeping the peace” often means mediating, finding a solution which will benefit all. If the purpose of the mosque is simply to have a place for Muslims to worship, then they certainly can find another spot which will fulfill their purpose and won’t offend others.

If their purpose, however, is to spit in the face of America, then they will not mediate. They will claim their constitutional right to build this facility across from the bombing site and forge ahead. If past behavior is any indication, I will predict that the Islamic clerics who are pushing for the construction of this mosque will not concede.

Especially now that they have our mighty president on their side.

Obama stood before these Muslims at his Iftar Ramadan party and gave them the green light to build their mosque wherever they darn-well please. He never mentioned that it would be a gesture of goodwill if they would simply move the location of this project down the street a few blocks, nor did he mention that relocating would be a huge step toward convincing skeptics that Islam is truly a religion of peace. He didn’t talk of the harm this mosque could do to Islamic/American relations or the wedge it could put between New Yorkers- those who were the most affected by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

No, Obama stood with the Muslims, once again.


Barack Hussein Obama continues to baffle those who want to believe that he is pro-American. He makes it very difficult for moderate democrats to defend him because his actions continue to fly in the face of what we’ve seen from prior presidents. We have never seen a president who refused to defend our country or the American people from a dangerous, illegal population- or one who sued one of the 50 states for defending themselves. We’ve never seen a president go abroad and denounce our country or bow to foreign leaders. We’ve never seen a president defend the actions of Black Panthers and Gitmo terrorists, yet jump at an opportunity to say the police “acted stupidly.”

It’s unprecedented.

According to Politico, the democrats who are now running in tough congressional races are frustrated by Obama’s stance: “Democrats — at least some who were willing to comment — could barely contain their frustration over Obama’s remarks, saying he had potentially placed every one of their candidates into the middle of the debate by giving GOP candidates a chance to ask them point-blank: Do you agree with Obama on the mosque, or not?”

Few democrats are offering their opinion, yet every politician who is running for office should be asked this question.

Why? Because according to a CNN poll, 2/3 of the American people oppose the mosque- and Americans have a right to know where their elected officials stand.

After taking some heat, Obama is now backing away from his comments. He claims that he wasn’t giving the green light to the Muslims, simply stating that they had a constitutional right to build wherever they’d like. Some in the GOP, including Sarah Palin, aren’t buying this turnaround. In a recent Facebook posting, Sarah asked the President: “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade.”

Interestingly enough, the controversial Imam who is pressing for the construction of the mosque is now touring the Middle East on the taxpayers’ dime. Yes, the State Department- aka, Hillary Clinton- has given this man an “all expense paid” trip as an “envoy” to the United States. He will also be given the opportunity to visit a few rich friends who might help him fund the mosque.

And these rich friends may also repay the favor to Clinton or Obama during the 2012 election cycle.

This controversy has done nothing but once again divide our nation. Just as Obama has pitted democrats against republicans, blacks against whites, illegals against legals, and rich against poor, he is now dividing us on a basis of religion. What’s sad is that it doesn’t have to be this way. If those of the Islamic faith will merely come into our country, assimilate into our culture, follow our rules, and use some common courtesy, they would go a long way toward healing the negative feelings of 9/11.

Divide and conquer- that’s the communist way. It’s difficult for communists to defeat a united nation, but relatively easy for them to exercise power over a divided mass. Obama has studied Marxism his whole life- he knows this to be true.

Our president is not a bumbling idiot who doesn’t understand the ramifications of his words. Quite the contrary.

He’s very intelligent.

And very intentional.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Islam, Obama, Uncategorized, communism, constitution, ethics, lsm | Comments (1) | Author: lsm

The Dems Playbook: How To Steal An Election

Monday, 19. July 2010 7:32

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin

So that’s how the democrats plan on winning in 2012…..

Thanks to a recent investigation by the Minnesota Majority, some light has been cast on voter fraud in Minnesota. This organization reviewed the 2008 election records from a few MN. counties and discovered that criminal felons had voted in numbers large enough to skew the Senate race between Coleman and Franken.

So much for good, wholesome, Midwest elections.

Our President is working hard to ensure that convicted felons in ALL 50 states will have this same opportunity to vote. You see, there are about 5.3 million untapped votes out there- the only problem is that they happen to belong to folks who are murders, armed robbers, rapists and other convicts. This is proving to be a huge, potential resource of votes for the democrat party, one they’d like to get their dirty little hands on.

In any way possible.

The key to getting these votes is to first change state laws that prevent felon voting at the state level. This is most easily done by using the argument that these criminals are “disenfranchised voters.”

In the world of liberals, everyone is a victim, even rapists.

“They are people, too.”

This tactic worked in Florida during the 2008 election. With over a million ex-felons (between 250,000 and 500,000 voted) and a new law signed by Charlie Crist allowing them to vote, Florida turned from “Red” to “Blue”, giving Obama a victory by 200,000 votes. Of course, we can’t be sure that the “criminal” vote was the reason for this change, but it certainly didn’t hurt the democrats’ cause.

It also didn’t hurt that Obama ran a registration drive for the criminals in Florida called “YOU CAN VOTE, TOO!!”

He’s pandering to murderers?….

Shockingly, Obama didn’t launch a similar campaign for the military vote…

Iowa restored voting to felons in 2005 and in the past presidential election, the state swung over to the democrat side. The same scenario happened in Colorado, a state which decided in 2007 to allow ex-felons to vote as long as they had completed their parole. True to form, in 2008, Colorado also became a Blue State- the first time in 26 years. Virginia is now legalizing felons and in 2008 became another swing state that went to Obama.


Reinstating the right for criminals to vote state-by-state is a tedious process. The democrats are trying their best to get this done on a national level in one, clean sweep through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Judge Sonia Sotomayor may help his cause. When Sonia was a Circuit court judge, a case came before her court- Hayden vs Pataki, in which a murderer named Joseph “Jazz” Hayden (he stabbed a sanitation worker to death) became an advocate for letting felons vote. Judge Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion because she believed that the Voting Rights Act applies to all groups who have been discriminated against, including felons.

We now know how she’ll rule on any case involving the voting rights of illegals, felons, or even dead people.

But there’s more. We heard from Mr. J. Christian Adams, the lawyer who recently quit the Justice Dept. because of the way the Black Panther case was handled. According to the WSJ, “Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: “We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

So our Justice Department is NOT INTERESTED in purging dead voters, illegals, or felons from elections? Are you kidding me?

Isn’t that the law?

Suddenly, the democrats election landscape of 2012 is becoming very clear, isn’t it? We’re well on our way to allowing millions of convicts to vote, a tactic proven effective in swing states. Add to that the push for amnesty, and the democrats will acquire another voting block of millions. ACORN, while technically disbanded, is reorganizing under various names in every state, making more difficult to trace the corruption because each will appear to be an individual entity. Watch as they are once again able to gain government funding and return to their old tactics.

Oh, and in recent FBI reports, former ACORN employees have now admitted that ACORN Headquarters was indeed working for the democrat party. Yes, folks, our tax dollars were going to an organization that was a champion for the dems.


And then there’s the dead people. If our federal government has indeed issued ORDERS that we will not enforce policies that purge these people from our voting lists, there will be no integrity in our elections. In states like Minnesota, with NO photo ID requirement, anyone can enter a polling place and pretend to be someone who has passed away.

When Barack Obama callously pushes agenda after agenda through our government, most of us shake our heads and wonder how in the world he expects to get elected in 2012 if he continues this behavior.

Now we know. The illegals voting in places like Texas, Utah, and Arizona will have an impact there. The convicts in Minnesota, Florida, Iowa, and others will have an impact there. The dead folks in many states will skew those elections. Add to that the liberal Secretaries of State- along with a Justice Department who turns a blind eye to all of this, including voter intimidation by the Black Panthers- and the dems will have themselves another victory in 2012.

Four more years to push their agenda.

Four more years to “change” our country.

Four more years we cannot afford.

Go to Home Page:

Category:Obama, Uncategorized, amnesty, constitution, corruption, ethics, government policies, lsm, political | Comment (0) | Author: lsm