Love it or Leave it!!

IF THERE BE TROUBLE, LET IT BE IN MY DAY, THAT MY CHILD MAY HAVE PEACE..Thomas Paine, "The Crisis" 1776, ("The Undefeated").

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Citizens United leader to Obama on new constitutional amendment: ‘Bring it on’

Posted by devildog6771 on August 30, 2012


Citizens United leader to Obama on new constitutional amendment: ‘Bring it on’

TAMPA, Fla. — After President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that he wants a new constitutional amendment to overturn the landmark “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United president David Bossie told The Daily Caller he has a message for the president: “Bring it on.”

“President Obama has never paid much attention to, nor cared much for, the founders’ intent,” Bossie said in a phone interview. “So they want to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the First Amendment. That’s always what the anti-free-speech crowd is about. That’s what this is.”

“Citizens United is, pure and simple, a free speech case that the president and the left can’t handle because they can’t win the argument,” Bossie continued. “They can’t make their own political arguments and win them with the American people so they have to stifle speech. That is the only way the left has ever been able to win in America.” (RELATED: Obama floats constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United)

Ask yourself why the President wants a convention now? Are you aware that once a convention convenes the delegates are not required to adhere to the agenda their home state asked them to propose. They can do as they darn well please! They will most assuredly attempt to get their new re-written Constitution on the table. They may also try to push through the electoral College change they have worked on for ever and thus give Obama the presidency without an election! Do the research! these are both valid arguments against a convention at this time or anytime soon before we purge our government of all the “enemies within” through the ballot box! The only real fly in the ointment is “Soros and his money ”

Here’s another take on his reasons.:

Obama said Wednesday afternoon during an online event on Reddit.com that he wanted a new constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling. “I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote. “Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”

Obama’s remarks came just one day after Citizens United premiered its new film “The Hope and The Change” at the Republican National Convention.

The film, which Stephen Bannon directed and Democratic strategists Pat Cadell and Kendra Stewart helped oversee, walks viewers through the stories of 40 Democrats and independents around the country who voted for Obama in 2008 but are now disappointed in their choice.

The former Obama supporters open up about how they believe he has failed on economic policies, health care and energy policy, and spends too much time and taxpayer money vacationing, golfing and enjoying other leisure activities.

Cadell said at the film’s RNC premiere that what’s shown in the movie “is what terrorizes the Obama campaign — not the attacks from Republicans and Romney.”

 

If you go to discoverthenetworks.org and look under Clinton and Soros you will find out all about the Democratic Super Pacs and how they are so intricately tied together it is almost impossible to decipher them to their source. That site has loads of information and supported references. It even shows how the Dems already knew about the Pac loophole in the latest “Campaign Finance Law ” before it wasenacted  and how Soros and other big money people took control of the Democratic party! Check it out. You will be very surprised. This latestploy by Obama is right out of Alinsky’s handbook, accuse the other side of what you’re doing until people start to believe you and deny your own wrong doing or words to this effect. You can read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” on-line and you can also but it on-line or in your favorite bookstore pretty cheap. You might consider buying “Nudge,” to see how else the Democrats are manipulating us by their own words. They feel they are doing us a favor! Right!! Didn’t Hitler also have the same delusions ans Gos complex?

Read on:

“It’s the voice of the people who voted for him and are disappointed,” Cadell said.

Bossie told TheDC that Obama’s call for a new constitutional amendment was timed to “stifle anyone in America from seeing this film.”

“They’re scared of the message,” Bossie said. “And instead of being able to answer the message, they want to squelch our speech and squelch our rights. And you know what? That’s just a cheap political trick to play toward his base, but the American people are smarter than him. For a so-called ‘constitutional attorney’ at Harvard, I don’t think he respects the Constitution.”

“They’re terrified of this film and of its message,” Bossie added. “They’re terrified that we have identified a soft underbelly of Barack Obama — a weakness, if you will — and that is with Democrats and independents who once supported him and are now not [supporting him]. Those are the keys to his re-election.”

Bossie said he fully expects the Democratic Party to adopt Obama’s call for an anti-Citizens United constitutional amendment into its platform at next week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. But only far-left-wing Democrats, he said, the extreme wing of the party, will really support such an idea.

“I think it’s probably right that there are plenty of Democrats who would disagree with this [Obama’s proposals],” he said. “Smart Democrats, and we have plenty of them, don’t want to tinker with the Constitution. I think the American people and state legislatures would reject this soundly.”

“I’m more than happy to take him on on this case. I’m more than happy to take him on with a constitutional amendment. I say ‘bring it on,’ because it goes nowhere. And I think he knows it goes nowhere. It’s a cheap political ploy by him.”

Follow Matthew on Twitter
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Citizens United leader to Obama on new constitutional amendment: ‘Bring it on’

Rep. Gohmert on Obama foreign policy: Soldiers ‘getting killed under his command for no reason’

Sunrise Solar founder: Politicians must ‘work hard to earn my trust back’

Don’t worry, America, the Secret Service probably won’t keep leaving their weapons in airplane bathrooms

Without teleprompter, Condoleezza Rice brings GOP faithful to their feet

 

I think as voters we must become more vigilant and careful in gathering facts and information before we vote. Our nation’s rights and freedom depend on it!!

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Cost of Freedom, Democrats, election reform, Free Speech, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Serve and Protect the US Constitution, Socialism, The American Republic, The Enemy Within | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

“Yes We Can!” should be “No We Can’t”

Posted by devildog6771 on August 29, 2012


Not too long ago the Democrats were squawking about poor taste in media attacks. They insisted on a return to civility. Of late there have been several political ads, “I approve this message ” or words to that effect by the President, accompanying them. These ads accuse Romney of committing a felony, running companies into the ground as he, Romney, gets richer, and other false allegations. ans innuendos! The Democrats have no positive record of accomplishments by Obama to refer to. Unemployment is sky-high, the economy is in a nose dive. Our national debt rises out of control daily The Obama campaign slogan of “Yes We Can!”ought to be changed to, “No We Can’t!

Did Obama and his hand packed cabal of extreme and may I say “old” revolutionaries and radicals failed at every turn to carry out their goal of a fundamentally new “America!”  Unlike the British in England we will not sit by and watch the nation of our founders die and our freedoms fade away. We will strike back in the polls and in every other way guaranteed BY OUR “OUTDATED CONSTITUTION!” or “literature demonstrative of the era”!  Obama and his minions can continue to rewrite our Constitution on their own; but, we Americans are not ashamed of our country and we honor our Constitution and hold it in the highest regard!  More and more Americans have figured lout your real intent! AFter the elections may I suggest you all go to other nations and sell your worn out failed ideology. As for us real Americans, we choose as “Scotsman Wallace shouted just before the executioner chopped off his limbs and head centuries ago, “FREEDOM!!!!!” 

What you and your cabal don’t seem to get is this, we believe in the “American Dream,” and all that it encompasses. We strive for it, teach it to our kids, and die for it when called to do so! I am not sure any of you understand the emotional bond we Americans who love our nation feel for America and all it stands for. Keep trying to tear it down and you will soon see the true seeds of freedom molded into every fiber of our being. Will you kil us all or imprison us all? Because that is what it will take to bring down our country. Consider yourselves lucky this failed system you all hate is the only reason you are still free much less alive. Anywhere else in the world you all would be executed or put in prison, after a trial of course!!

My last thought to you all is “HOW DARE YOU ALL, WHO TRY TO RUIN ALL THAT ‘IS” AMERICA  AND IS “GOOD” ABOUT AMERICA? you LITTLE PEOPLE!!!!   I pity you all!!!!   

We don’t worship the Alinsky’s and such people as we prefer tothink for ourselves. We support people like Scott Walker. You do remember him don’t you?

Posted in Democrats, NO You Can't, Obama, Political Correctness, Politics, Republicans, Yes You Can | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama campaign add calls Romney a felon. Now this is a case of the “pot calling the kettle black!” Isn’t treason more serious than job out-sourcing?

Posted by devildog6771 on July 16, 2012


America is slowly dying from neglect and treason! Everytime I see the Obama campaign ad calling Romney a felon I think about the previous remark and cringe. As far as I am concerned, most of the Democrats in Congress and various leadership roles in America are traitors!! Now that sounds like slander. I may bw wrong,; but, I don’t  staking a true statement is slander. For instance, when our elected members of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary take office they swear allegiance to America, and promise to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.They also swear to take this oath “freely and without any hidden agenda.”

What type of agenda do these people have if they are berating the Constitution at every opportunity? It’s out dated, needs to be rewritten in our time for our time!! {whatever that ia supposed to mean} New law would allow state’s Electoral College votes to go to national winner. This is all part of a movement b Democrats. The electoral college was initiated to prevent huge states like New York and California from over shadowing the smaller, less populated states. It was meant to help[ make every states choice count!! The effort by Democrats can allow Obama to become President without an election if what I read a while back is valid. Help PEOPLE! Anyone out there who can explain this effort better, please feel free.

Back on topic, who refuses to protect our border and border states? It seems to me that the President has done everything he can to take down America as have Rei and Pelosi.  All three have hae accrued great amounts of wealth while in office.Discoverthenetworks.org   has substantiating information on all of this and more. While there, you might consider making a donation to help keep the site alive. Isn’t it called treason to work against the laws of a nation in a way harmful to said nation?

According to the Free Dictionary on Google

treason [ˈtriːzən]

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) violation or betrayal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country, esp by attempting to overthrow the government; high treason

2.any treachery or betrayal

[from Old French traïson, from Latin trāditiō a handing over; see tradition, traditor]
treasonable , treasonous adj
treasonableness n
treasonably adv

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

A MUST READ ” Obama’s Master George Soros: Supporting America’s Enemies at Home and Abroad”:

You will be shocked  at ythe ,material covered in this article. It definitelly is a MUST READ!!

Read more: Obama’s Master George Soros: Supporting America’s Enemies at Home and Abroad | The Soros Files http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2011/10/obamas-master-george-soros-supporting-americas-enemies-at-home-and-abroad.html#ixzz20oS9NYhJ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike

I don’t believe I am alone in this belief. See,  Obama’s Master George Soros: Supporting America’s Enemies at Home and Abroad, and read about one of the largest conspiracies to alter American government and rights. Read the entire article. for a good run down on those trying to tear America down and their goals ands plans.  I was surprised to read about the NLRB  questionable activities in the article.

Obama and Soros and many other high level government officials have long standing relationships. Soros ought to lose his citizenship and be deported to one of those countries that wants to indict him for crimes he committed against that nation.I sy send him to one of them. The man has global intentions. In my opinion, he is more dangerous than Hitler!! 

These are my opinions and thoughts. What do others think?

 

Posted in Obama, Politics, Republicans, Treason | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Judicial activism and judicial restraint – Judicial Review! Obama’s Challange and the “COTUS'” response!! Who is right?? What is your opinion?

Posted by devildog6771 on April 5, 2012


Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court B...

Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am sure we are all familiar with the feud developing between the President and the US Courts. In my opinion, the President openly challenged the authority High Court‘s authority to do its job, specifically in this case with regard to questions over “the legalities, etc. of the courts practicing ” judicial review and judicial restraint” when the members are non elected officials! Here we go again;  another “jab” at the archaic” nature of our “Constitution!” In my opinion, Obama will not be satisfied until this country is totally collapsed top to bottom!!??!! He has successfully put a strangle-hold on Congress as he legislates from the White House hiding behind Executive Privilege! He has taken control of our governmental organizations and agencies. Now he is trying to set up a civilian police force as competent as our military!!?? Why would he need such an organization when each state has their own guard foe national and state emergencies? He’s trying to take over the electoral college.–Haven’t heard in a while how that effort is going. If he succeeds, there will be no election and He will serve four more years! No one can stop him or at lest so he thinks. Apparently Judge Jerry Smith, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, disagrees. He has given the DOJ 48 hours to submit a “3” page responsw, single apaced, explaining the DOJ’s views on the separation os power’s between the Executive Branch and the Courts!! Gutsy move!!

Listen up Mr. President, you forgot about , “WE the People!” Did you really think we considered the Constitution obsolete and up for grabs? Read these words and then tell me do you really believe you will divide our nation by any means aand successfully “conquor” us? I suggest you read them several times:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It further tells every American and everyone else worldwide what our Constitutional goals and purposes are! Neither the Preamble nor the Constitution indicate that the hearts and minds of men and women would automatically adhere or live by these guiding principles.  However, through our Congress and our Courts, using guidelines clearly defined in our Constitution, have successfully, over time, clarified or fixed  those issues or laws which did or do not clearly define a right or law which did not effectively  work as intended or removed human error in interpretation o f said laws” Is the Constitution perfect? No! But, it has built in safeguards to allow necessary changes to occur or be made. Our judges have over the decades for the most part all done excellent jobs of holding our legislators to the intent and purpose of the Constitution as promised in these words””We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”.

Read more:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_preamble_to_the_US_Constitution#ixzz1rBMWvP3p

Those words have meaning to every American in this great nation! “We the people”, doesn’t say we white people or we black people, it says, ” We the people of the United States.” Though most blacks were not free at the time, nor were the American Indians directly affected by those words, they now apply to all Americans. as they always have except when men ignored those great words and applied their own selfish interests above the law of the land! “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, these words are pretty clear in their meaning. They don’t directly relate themselves to “class, nor race, creed ,or religious affiliation or lack thereof!  “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. During time of threats or war, all Americans defended our nation Since our war for Independence in 1775-6 all races, creeds and people of various national origins have defended America with their lives. From the code crackers in WWII to the Bedford Boys, to the Tuskagee Airman, America has been valiantly and bravely defended by all races,  colors, creeds. Are we a perfect nation, hell no, we are a living, evolving nation, we are the world melting pot, the worlds currs according to some 18th or 19th century European  philosphers. We managed to do here in America what no other nation has ever successfully come close to copying, the absorption of  a mixing bowl of people from all walks of life into one functioning society or nation. Many try to tear us down, none can show us anything better to date!! We may appear pompous and arrogant at times, we are!
In her poem The New Colossus, Emma Lazarus created what stood for years as an American credo. You know the words: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” The words of the poem were engraved on a bronze plaque hung in the Statue of Liberty museum 20 years after her death. The Statue was a gift to the United States from France as an offering of peace. It stands to this day as a monument to personal freedom and liberties all over the world. and will continue to do so for many more decades and millions of immigrants unless Obama’s administration wins reelection and the left successfully tears down America.

Here is some information I found at ANSWERS.COM which addresses the questions surrounding “judicial activism and judicial restraint”.

Oxford Guide to the US Government: judicial activism and judicial restraint

Article 3, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution says, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Article 3, Section 2, provides that the “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” Thus, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have the power to interpret the Constitution, and laws and treaties of the United States, in response to cases that come before the Court.

In 1796, in Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court held a Virginia statute void because it violated a 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain. In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. These cases established the power of judicial review in the Supreme Court—the power to declare acts of the state governments and of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government null and void if they violate provisions of the Constitution. Since the early 19th century, debate has continued over how federal judges should use their powers. Should they practice restraint, or should they actively expand the scope of the Constitution in their interpretations of law, treaties, and constitutional provisions?

Judicial restraint

Those who advocate judicial restraint believe the courts should uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution. In practicing judicial restraint, the courts should defer to the constitutional interpretations of Congress, the President, and others whenever possible. The courts should hesitate to use judicial review to promote new ideas or policy preferences. In short, the courts should interpret the law and not intervene in policy-making.

Over the years eminent Supreme Court Justices such as Felix Frankfurter have called for judicial self-restraint. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Frankfurter said, “As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my opinions into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them. … It can never be emphasized too much that one’s own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one’s duty on the bench.”

Judicial activism

Sometimes judges appear to exceed their power in deciding cases before the Court. They are supposed to exercise judgment in interpreting the law, according to the Constitution. Judicial activists, however, seem to exercise their will to make law in response to legal issues before the Court.

According to the idea of judicial activism, judges should use their powers to correct injustices, especially when the other branches of government do not act to do so. In short, the courts should play an active role in shaping social policy on such issues as civil rights, protection of individual rights, political unfairness, and public morality.

Chief Justice Earl Warren (who served from 1954 to 1969) and many members of the Warren Court, such as William O. Douglas, practiced judicial activism when they boldly used the Constitution to make sweeping social changes promoting such policies as school desegregation and to insure that all Americans had the opportunity to vote and to participate in U.S. society. In 1956 Justice Douglas wrote, “[T]he judiciary must do more than dispense justice in cases and controversies. It must also keep the charter of government current with the times and not allow it to become archaic or out of tune with the needs of the day.”

Arguments against judicial activism

Opponents of judicial activism argue that activist judges make laws, not just interpret them, which is an abuse of their constitutional power. The issue, they claim, is not whether social problems need to be solved but whether the courts should involve themselves in such problem solving. By making decisions about how to run prisons or schools, argue the critics of judicial activism, the courts assume responsibilities that belong exclusively to the legislative and executive branches of government.

Critics of judicial activism worry that court decisions that so freely “interpret” the meaning of the Constitution will undermine public confidence in and respect for the courts. Justice Byron R. White wrote in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), “The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable [knowable] roots in the language or design of the Constitution.”

In addition, critics point out that federal judges are not elected; they are appointed for life terms. As a result, when judges begin making policy decisions about social or political changes society should make, they become unelected legislators. Consequently, the people lose control of the right to govern themselves. Further, unlike legislatures, courts are not supposed to be open to influence from interest groups. As a result, the courts may not hear different points of view on complex social issues. In legislatures, by contrast, elected officials are responsive to such interests.

Finally, opponents of judicial activism argue that judges lack special expertise in handling such complex tasks as running prisons, administering schools, or determining hiring policies for businesses. Judges are experts in the law, not in managing social institutions.

Opponents of judicial activism point to the constitutional principle of separation of powers (the division of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government) and federalism (the division of power between the states and the federal government) to justify judicial restraint. They claim that judicial activism leads to unconstitutional intrusions of federal judicial power into the duties and powers of the executive and legislative branches of government and into the state governments. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice John M. Harlan wrote, “Judicial self-restraint… will be achieved… only by continual insistence upon… the great roles that the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers have played in establishing and preserving American freedoms.”

Arguments for judicial activism Supporters of judicial activism argue that it is necessary to correct injustices and promote needed social changes. They view the courts as institutions of last resort for those in society who lack the political power to influence the other branches of government.

Supporters of judicial activism point out that the courts often step in only after governors and state legislatures have refused to do anything about a problem. For example, neither state legislatures nor Congress acted to ban racially segregated schools, trains, city buses, parks, and other public facilities for decades. Segregation might still exist legally if the Supreme Court had not declared it unconstitutional in 1954.

Supporters of judicial activism also mention that local courts and judges are uniquely qualified to ensure that local officials uphold the guarantees of the Constitution. In fact, with a few exceptions, district court judges have written most of the decisions affecting local institutions. For example, an Alabama judge took over the administration of the prison system in that state because he decided that the conditions in the prisons violated the Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Similarly, a Texas judge, a man born and raised in the Lone Star State, ordered sweeping changes in the Texas prison system. And a Massachusetts judge, himself a Boston resident, ordered massive school desegregation in that northern city. In each case, the district judge adopted an activist solution to a problem. But each pursued an activist course because he felt that only such measures would enforce the dictates of the Constitution.

Judicial activists argue that the courts do not create policy as legislatures do. Judges inevitably shape policy, however, as they interpret the law. And, they argue, interpreting the law is the job of the courts. Chief Justice Earl Warren put it this way: “When two [people] come into Court, one may say: ‘an act of Congress means this.’ The other says it means the opposite. We [the Court] then say it means one of the two or something else in between. In that way we are making the law, aren’t we?”

Finally, judicial activists argue that the framers of the Constitution expected the courts to interpret the Constitution actively in order to react to new conditions. As Justice Frank Murphy wrote in Schneiderman v. United States (1943), “The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political strait-jacket for the generations to come.”

See also Constitutional construction; Judicial power; Judicial review; Separation of powers.

Many felt the President’s words were a threat or warning to  the SCOTUS. I took his remarks as a threat to our independence on a national level! He and his radical cronies will never stop trying to over-through America. When will traitors be treated as such instead of  simply appeasing them? We aew watching the “enemies from within” that I first started writing about over six year ago at work in America., no longer hiding!!??

Sources

Harry H. Wellington, Interpreting the Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Process of Adjudication (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991)

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint#ixzz1rAwwkh00

1.)  What is judicial activism?

Answer:

‘Judicial activism’ means an interpretation of the U.S. constitution holding that the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation can legitimately influence judicial decisions (particularly decisions of the Supreme Court)

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_judicial_activism#ixzz1rAxmTgxA

2.)What is judicial restraint?

ANSWER:

‘Judicial restraint’ is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda.

The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_judicial_restraint#ixzz1rAyuxGMj

What is the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism?

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are opposite approaches to legal and constitutional interpretation used as the basis for decision-making in a court case. The terms are usually, but not…

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_judicial_restraint#ixzz1rB2QBxWZ

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?Read answer

Cite
Oxford Guide to the US Government The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved. Read more

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint#ixzz1rB5yAAew

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, A Tribute, America, American Exceptionalism, Big Government, Cost of Freedom, Government, Immigration, Obama, smear campaigns, The American Republic, The Bible, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Enemy Within, the Government, The Tea Party, The United States, Treason, United States Constitution, US Congress, US Supreme Court | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Saudi Religious Leader Orders Destruction of Christian Churches. Obama says…nothing.

Posted by devildog6771 on March 26, 2012


 Freedom by the Way has a great post we all should read about religious persecution of all non-Muslims! Sounds familiar doesn’t it?? Go read Freedom’s post, “Saudi Religious Leader Orders Destruction of Christian Churches. Obama says…nothing.” is a great article and a warning to all Christians!! As I read this post I wondered if this was the mufti” Iraq is waiting for!??? One only has to look all over Europe to see how doing nothing has led to Muslim takeovers. Only SIOE is successfully fighting back.

Freedom Android

Freedom Android (Photo credit: Tiago A. Pereira)

Posted in Christianity, Churches, Freedom of Religion, Islam, Muslim Extremists, Obama, Radical Islam, Religious Persecution, SIOA, SIOE | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Just rambling on Newt, the Costa Concordia, the D.C. “Rat problem,” and a suggested solution from Va.!

Posted by devildog6771 on January 20, 2012


Feral Cat killing a native Australian Major Mi...

Image via Wikipedia

So much is happening; I find I don’t know where to start. That horrific cruise ship accident really boggles the mind. I find I must be careful not to get too excited; but, it is hard to stay calm when I watch reports on this cruise ship’s “captain?” and I use “that” word lightly.  That man shames his profession. But I fault the Cruise Lines too! Was there no “chain of command” on that ship? This morning FOX showed a passenger video of a female crew member who took it upon her self to help passengers evacuate the ship! The member was amazingly calm! I wonder how many lives she saved with her courage and professionalism? Sadly the last lives unaccounted for may remain a mystery. Te ship rests on a ledge and is about to go over the side with its remaining fuel aboard! I hear this wreck compared often to the Titanic. There is no comparison except for the loss of human life due to arrogance. T he crew of the Titanic responded admirably to their crisis. Her Captain did not flee his post! I will keep those missing in my prayers!

On a different topic, it seems the jobs and resource freedom offered by the new “pipeline” won’t happen. Is anyone really surprised? I’m not. We all could see that coming! Maybe we need to thank Canada for hanging in there so calmly. A less patient people would be furious at the revenue loss they are incurring while our President puts a nix in the pipeline project. Does this man really thin he can get re-elected? If he does, we have only our selves to blame for the consequences!

How about Perry? He did the responsible thing, I admire his decisions. Took a lot of courage and sense of duty to do what he did. It certainly has moved Newt up the ladder. I suppose he is my choice since Palin was so badly battered until she had to back off. American politics are a risky and shady venture. Like many nations we also have our corrupt, rich, and powerful pulling string. Then we also have our clueless public!! Can you imagine a Palin and Newt ticket? The President would be left at the starting gate! [sorry, should that be golf tee?]

The Va. government is getting worried about the rats [four-legged kind] increasing in number in D.C.’s “Occupy Camp!” Apparently D.C. has some unusually humane laws foe dealing with these disease-spreading creatures. A caller on a local Richmond, Va. talk radio show suggested that since Richmond has an abundance of feral cats, we capture our cats and “send them to D.C. to clear up their growing “4-legged rat problem!” Guess they’re stuck with the “2” legged rats until they vote them out of office!! I wonder if those D.C. rats are anything like those NY rats. When I worked in D.C. for telco, the NYT guys always joked about how large their rats were. Think maybe we were bored for topics? No way! According to NYT guys NY has some huge rats in their sewwers! MY thoughts, “Go for it Ken!” You gotta admit Va.’s Attorney General has “real family jewels!!”

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, Family Jewells, Human Interest, Newt Gingrich, Obama, Politics, Sarah Palin, Travel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Margaret Thatcher and the “Entitlement Society” – Will America Make the Same Mistakes England Made by Ignoring Maggie’s Advice?

Posted by devildog6771 on October 13, 2011


President Reagan walking with Prime Minister M...

Image via Wikipedia

Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher is a unique individual. She is highly intelligent and extremely well educated. She has an iron will and she did not back down when challenged by international bullies in other nations. At times she has been accused of being inflexible.  She warned repeatedly against the Euro, fought hard to retain England‘s sovereignty. No one can say Maggie didn’t make an earnest attempt to restore England to the free, prosperous nation it once was. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, America, Communism, Cost of Freedom, Gov. Palin, Herman Cain, Magaret Thatcher, Marxism, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Socialism, The "Entitlement Society", The Economy, the Government, The United States, Unions | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. says “take the SOB’s Out!”

Posted by devildog6771 on September 5, 2011


Weird Sign

Image by benuski via Flickr

I just heard Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. say on national T.V. on FOX News, in reference to the “Tea Party, ” Let’s take the SOB’s out!” When the President began his address, he ignored Hoffa’s remarks. He began his speech by naming off the Union President’s present at the event.  He proceeded to say how those present represented the middle class.

Does Hoffa and the President remember that unions only make up 7% of the private sector? Does he realize the Public sector union workers are not the total middle class? They are the minority! Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Jr, Obama, The Tea Party, Unions | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Great Man, Obama, so says Biden??

Posted by devildog6771 on June 22, 2011


Stalin, Lenin and Mikhail Kalinin (photo from ...

Image via Wikipedia

Biden Calls Obama ‘Great Man.‘ Says GOP Medicare Plan and Bin Laden’s Death Will Help Dems. Obama is another Hitler wannabe. A Lenin or Stalin impersonator. He surrounds himself with his Czars of evil because he knows he couldn’t have gotten them vetted through Congress. If he had been working directly with his cabinet as he should, he would be impeached by now and probably charged with treason. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in AFL/CIO, Communism, Government, Obama, Political Correctness, Sedition, Socialism, Treason | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

What’s next, “Chairman Obama?”

Posted by devildog6771 on May 25, 2011


US Postage Stamp depicting delegates at the si...

Image via Wikipedia

From CJ Grishm at Facebook, Obamacare bombshell: Final ruling may wait until after 2012 election | Ken Klukowski | Columnists. This ruling will come back to haunt us all!

But now the Fourth Circuit may be angling to ruin those plans. This afternoon, the panel ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs by May 31 explaining the consequences if the court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act applies. That’s a bomb for one simple reason: The Anti-Injunction Act applies to federal taxes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Government, Obama, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »