Obama’s Orwellian Health Care lie Revealed

No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. –president Barry Hussein Obama

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) had it right all along. This president is a liar! He and his Democrat Party manipulate words and meaning like a Crack-ho manipulates her mamma for money to buy milk for her baby.

“Mamma I need twenty dollars, I promise I’m going to buy milk for the baby.” Mamma knows that her daughter the Crack-ho is probably lying, yet there’s that outside chance that she might be telling the truth this time. Out of hundreds of disappointments, this may be the time. But alas, Social Services called. They have the baby again and the crack-ho mama is nowhere to be found.

President Soetoro stated emphatically on nation television with George Stephanopoulos that if his mandated Health Care reform measure was pass by Congress it wouldn’t be a tax increase on the American people. (see article)

The Democrats in Congress knowing passed this legislation to give Soetoro and their Party a victory rather than look out for the best interest of the American people and protect us from this misguided legislation.

Well American people, Social Services just called and they want you to pick up the baby!

That’s right but first, just to remind you somewhat forgetful Americans here’s the White house Crack-ho wasting over two minutes of George Stephanopoulos’ time arguing that health care reform is not a tax increase. (see 2:38min video)

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

You see Progressives can make up reality out of whole cloth by using language while totally disregarding the traditional language and law. Specifically, they do this by using politically correct language, propaganda or lies, (or as I refer to it their Orwellian Worldview) feed it to a Progressive judge, he or she rules, et voilà a new precedence in law is made out of whole cloth!

No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. –president Barry Hussein Soetoro

No he can't Mr. president, you’re correct, the ability to just make up language and decide meaning by rights is totally patented by Progressive Democrats and you.

This is the thinking, which Elena Kagan represents to the Supreme Court. As well, this thinking is what Progressives hope will influence Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker out in California deliberating whether to strike down the law, which amends California’s Constitution, which defines marriage for the State of California. It is Progressive’s hope that Judge Walker will accomplish the Orwellian feat of changing the meaning of marriage by simply ruling that California’s law is unconstitutional even though it is not. (previous post)

But I digress, earlier this year president Soetoro made his case to the American people that if his health care reform were passed his reforms wouldn’t represent a tax increase on the American people.

Yet currently the Soetoro Justice department is presently in court arguing against more than 20 states and several private organizations that have filed claiming that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that Americans buy a government-mandated product.

To counter those arguments the Soetoro Justice department is arguing that Americans must comply with the government mandated health care reform because it is a tax!

That’s right you read correctly, health care reform is a tax increase, the Crack-ho left you the baby and is on vacation in Maine. (see article)

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”-- ROBERT PEAR

But wait there’s more, not only is the Soetoro unapologetically defending this “tax increase” they are claiming extra Constitutional powers to do so. And just what are extra Constitutional powers? Those, ladies and gentlemen, are illegitimate powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. —Robert Pear

According to the Soetoro administration, Congress can use taxing power even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions of the Constitution.

And it gets even stranger than that! According to reporter Robert Pear, Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

What!?! You’re not shocked yet?

Well there’s more. Apparently, the law describes such a levy of fines against people as a penalty rather than a tax. However, the Soetoro administration says in one breath the law doesn’t matter, precise form of words they don’t matter either.

And here’s the tricky part, I called it the Elena Kagan approach to law.  What the Soetoro administration did it cited “a long line of Supreme Court cases” which according to them grants them constitutionality based on judicial precedence, totally disregarding what the actual Constitution says thereby they supersede the Constitution with judicial precedence (pretty tricky huh?) on the tax or penalty’s “practical operation.” Simply deviously manipulative!

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. —Robert Pear

And what is its practical operation? Well according to the Soetoro administration, this “penalty” will raise $4 billion, a year by 2017, therefore it is a tax!

So the president and his administration have effectively managed to avoid calling fines under mandated government health care penalties but in order to argue their constitutional validity in court Soetoro’s Justice department are calling the penalties, taxes!

George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. —president Barry Hussein Soetoro

Imagine that, mandated Obamacare is both penalties and taxes simultaneously or not, depending on which meaning the president chooses to use. It’s no wonder the president didn’t want George Stephanopoulos to use the dictionary.

In the president’s progressive worldview, all things are defined as he wishes. In his mind, only he is the arbiter of meaning, independent sources like dictionaries notwithstanding. That my Dear Readers, is the essence of Creating Orwellian Worldview by Machiavellianism!

Of Teleprompters, Talking points, The Party line and Illegal Aliens

Party line Partisans:Axelrod, Patrick and Obama

No administration has been tougher on enforcement—David Axelrod, White house senior adviser

Like the brother who constantly over compensates for his multiple failures in life by telling wild exaggerated stories of accomplishments.

Accomplishments that, he will be quick to tell you, through no fault of his own somehow got away. David Axelrod White house senior adviser went on the Sunday circuit with talking points about the Barry Hussein Soetoro immigration policies that amounted to over compensated wild and exaggerated stories that one might hear from a loser brother.

I can always tell when someone received coaching to carry the Party line. Eyes roll back to the back of their heads until you see the whites. Then they begin to regurgitate nonsensical echo chamber gibberish that we’ve all heard ad infinitum from their colleagues and compatriots.

Such was the case with Axelrod. Every word he spoke to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was carefully crafted propaganda straight from the president’s own teleprompter.

Axelrod’s gestures where practiced and fake and the lies that he told were obvious to even the most amateurish politico. (see 3:21min video)

When making the case for the Obama administration’s legal challenge to Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said “no administration has been tougher” on immigration enforcement than the Obama administration.—Breitbart TV

Even when faced with the corrective truth as Chris Wallace attempted to do partisans like Axelrod with not relent from their scripted sheet of lies.

The facts are this present administration has not done more than any other administration in the history of the United States to combat the problem of Illegal aliens. Moreover, had they thought the American people weren’t so ignorant they would not keep repeating the same bald face lie in attempts to disparage Arizona.

Which by the way, is the only state in the Union that is presently attempting to defend the constitution and defend America!

What other administration did more than this administration to stem the tide of illegal aliens? I wrote about it 2 years ago. Please see below.

Everything’s Free in America!
Or so it would seem by the lack of enforcement of United States borders. I’ve heard a lot of discussion about it and I’ve engaged in some very spirited debate regarding what if anything can be done about the 11million to 20million illegals that are presently in the United States of America.

The best situation that I’ve come across is one that was already implemented in the 1950s. The 1950s, you ask, did we have an illegal alien problem way back then?

Yes, we did, however, we had a President who had the will and took the initiative to do something about illegals and protect this country’s integrity.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower solved the problem of illegal aliens and virtually stopped illegal immigration into the United States and the results of these efforts were felt for over 10 years in this country.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

How did President Eisenhower virtually stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country?

President Eisenhower hired the right people, he resisted powerful political and corporate interests, and he enforced the law.

On June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

It’s really not that hard! It’s already been done. The question is does America have the political will to self correct or will political, special and corporate interest continue to convince citizens that nothing can be done?

President Eisenhower already solved this problem; the only problem, which remains, is how we wrest control of our country back from the political, special and corporate interests that are vehemently fighting to keep the illegal status quo entrenched in this country for profit and for political advantage. (previously posted)

To be sure the Soetoro administration has not done more to protect American from an invasion of illegal aliens than any other administration. Nor is this administration doing the very minimal to protect this country now.

In fact this administration is aiding and abetting illegal entry while attempting to give the appearance that they are the greatest American defenders ever.
They are not!

And David Axelrod is the over compensating, teleprompter, talking points, Party line partisan brother who tells lies and the rest of the family nods their heads knowing that what he says can’t be believed.

Obama, White house: al Qaeda is Racist

In an interview earlier today with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to air in a few hours, President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups' willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.—Jake Tapper

And I suppose releasing the New Black Panthers from voter intimidation charges just because the Black Panthers are Black is not Racist Mr. Soetoro?

Oh this is rich, president Barry Hussein Soetoro who just accused Jews of having a problem with him because his middle name is Hussein (but not because of his anti-Jewish policies) is now accusing al Qaeda of racism. (see article)

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."—Haaretz Service

Look, I’m not going to waste your time or mine arguing whether or not al Qaeda is an “equal opportunity” terrorist organization but neither should the President.

But I do think that if the word Racist is the strongest pejorative invective that the Obama administration can come up with (and it is) against Fanatical Islamists that use terrorism to hurt, maim and killing in the name of Allah’s holy jihad against non-Muslims world-wide, then we are in a world of politically correct trouble.

Now I supposed since the Obama administration scrubbed the words and phrases: terrorism, war-on-terror, Muslim extremists and Islamic terrorists, from political correct speech the word Racist is the strongest negative that they could muster.

"Additionally, U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs," the official said. "Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."—Jake Tapper

Therefore, calling al Qaeda Racist is the strongest pejorative in the Liberal Progressive lexicon.

What other depreciatory words are on the Liberal Progressive list. Let’s see next to Racist there’s the word Republican. Wouldn’t it be fun to see the headline; Obama and White house say that al Qaeda are Republicans! Truth is he hates Republicans worst than al Qaeda!

Or here’s one, Obama and White house say that al Qaeda are homophobes! I can hear the valley girls out in California saying , Oh my God! Jennifer, did you hear that al Qaeda is homophobic, guy… that is sooo gay!

Then al Qaeda would have to defend its honor… “We are not this homophobe”
“Some of our best suicide bombers are homosexuals!”

Or maybe al Qaeda doesn’t believe Obama was born in the United States that would make them “birthers.” Now boy that’s nasty. Birthers are stupid crazies who won’t believe internet postings of Barry Hussein Soetoro’s birth certificate.

What if al Qaeda where tea partiers they would be Racist tea baggers (Oh there you go full circle)

Or maybe al Qaeda doesn’t believe in Global warming then they would be deniers or flatearthers who receive funding from big Oil Companies.

Or the worst disparaging thing you could say about anyone, al Qaeda is Bush! Then Soetoro could blame them for everything: high unemployment, the deficits, out of control Congressional spending, the oil spill in the Gulf, etc.

Maybe NASA could launch a mission to al Qaeda. To teach al Qaeda they can feel good about themselves without having to feel racially superior to Africans. I mean NASA is already in the area teaching practitioners of Islam self-esteem.

In any event, now that we know that the word Racist is the strongest derogatory word in the Liberal insult bag, wouldn’t AG Eric Holder and the president qualify as Racists for their apparent Racial favoritism toward Blacks and their obvious hatred of White people (see previous posts here and here)

Maybe Barry Hussein Soetoro can arrange a beer summit between al Qaeda and Africans. Mind you, we wouldn’t expect such a meeting to teach al Qaeda to value African life, but boy what a fabulous photo op!

It’s Obama’s Radical Liberal Socialist Progressive agenda stupid!

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs

In terms of…we have a new poll out in NBC news and it shows some pretty bad numbers about 51 percent (bad numbers for the president) 51 percent would rather have the Republicans run Congress to act as a check on Obama’s policies. Why do you think a majority of the country would want the other Party to take over to be a check on Obama’s policies? –NBCNews Reporter, White house press corps

Leaving aside his smartass persona for a brief moment press secretary Robert Gibbs attempted to explain why a recent Washington Post poll indicates that a majority of Americans would trust Republicans in Congress to offset president Barry Hussein Soetoro’s policies. (see 6:07min video)




Gibbs somewhat disjointed in his response, used PowerPoint and charts to explain what he says is the American’s people frustration with the economy.
Ahh…No Mr. Gibbs you just don’t get it, do you? While the American people are frustrated with the Soetoro administration’s failed fiscal policies that is not what is stuck in our craw! (see article)

What the American people are most upset about is the president’s Radical Liberal Socialist Progressive agenda stupid!

You know Mr. Gibbs, the agenda that you, the president and Democrats call hope and change.

However what the American people discovered was, what president Soetoro was calling hope and change was really the president hoping that he could change the way we believe as Americans about the Constitution, Religion , Homosexuality, American prosperity, the rule of law, Immigration, entitlements, the founding fathers and a host of fundamental American beliefs.

But the resounding answer back to the Soetoro administration is, we’ve seen your hope and change and no thank you—you radical Liberal Socialists Progressive pigs!

Obama’s Green Scheme

Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy. —James Delingpole

President Barry Hussein Soetoro claims that America is going in the right direction when it comes to his vision of a new green economy.

So let me ask this simple question. If I could show you how to make $1,000 extra dollars a week, only one small thing, it would it cost you $2,200 dollars every time you made a $1,000. Would you consider that a good deal? No if you’re smart, you wouldn’t.

Yet this is the deal what the president of the United States of America is offering America with his Green jobs economy. The president Soetoro has claimed that Spain is the paradigm in creating good green jobs. It is in the direction of Spain that he plans to take America. But according to a recent Spanish report on green jobs and renewable energy their tax payer subsidized green jobs efforts are unsustainable (see report)

[A] Spanish study concluding that for every green job created in Spain resulted in the loss of 2.2 other jobs.— Doris de Guzman

It is common knowledge that the green economy is a bust. (see article)

Here is president Soetoro touting Spain as the model for good green job creation. (see 1:40mins video)

The study finds that only one in 10 renewable energy jobs created in Spain were of a permanent nature. Two-thirds consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs; one quarter were positions in administration, marketing and projects engineering; and only one of ten was related to more permanent operations and maintenance of renewable power systems.-- Doris de Guzman

Furthermore, British reporter James Delingpole reports Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy. (see article)

The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every "green job" created. Jobs lost were mostly in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.
"The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices," Calzada said in an interview with Bloomberg News. –Doris de Guzman

Mr. Delingpole also alerts us to the fact that president Obama knows that his green jobs initiative is a fraud. When two reports came out, the Spanish one just mentioned and a Denmark report citing the inefficiency of wind farms, both totally repudiating Soetoro claims for green jobs--the Obama administration recruited left-wing lobbyists to attack both reports.

After two studies refuted President Barack Obama’s assertions regarding the success of Spain’s and Denmark’s wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.—James Delingpole

According to Delingpole, Via the Freedom of Information Act or the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy — specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi — turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.
Yet Soetoro sells his go green initiative and good green jobs as beneficial to the American people and the American worker. Wrong! Good green jobs are meant to benefit Corporations like BP and big money interest like George Soros. In addition to that, Soetoro persists on selling good green jobs to an unwary but increasingly skeptical American public. (see 2:26mins video)




President Soetoro’s energy plan is a job killing fraud and he knows it. And it is becoming increasingly evident that he doesn’t care that we know that it’s fraudulent. Or does he think the American people that stupid?

November will show just how stupid the American people are mr. president! I’m hoping that we are smart enough to throw Democrats out of office for their gross incompetence from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to a green energy jobs creation initiative that will destroy 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created.

Democrats plan to lift middle finger to America

Harry Reid on his way out?

"I've got lots of things I want to do" [in a lame duck] --Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.)

“If I can’t have you then nobody can!”

Those are the words of a crazed obsessed murderous rejected lover with crimson knife in hand standing over the bludgeoned body of a wife who rejected him and was going to file for divorce. He’d been abusing her for years and she finally summoned the courage to protect her and her children from this psychopathic monster.

Likewise fearing that the American people have had enough and will abandon them in November 2010 Democrats are planning to get their last stabs in on the American people before the people can file for divorce.

What are the partisan legislative slabs that Democrats plan to bludgeon the American people? I’m glad you asked, they are: Cap and Trade, Card-check—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections, Federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, Deficit commission recommendations, New taxes, Ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, Budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending and of course more pork sending.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.—John Fund

What I am talking about is Democrats plans to use the anticipated upcoming lame duck session to traumatize the American people with more unpopular partisan legislation. These plans are in the works as partisan Democrats begin to plan their fates. This tact is now made possible because the legislators who will be voting for these highly damaging bills have either retired or polls indicate that there is no way that they will be returned to Congress. Therefore, these rejected Democrats feel they have nothing to fear from the American electorate any longer. (see article)

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.—John Fund

So in the most anti-American “in your face” one finger jester that Democrats can muster they are going to muscle through as much of their agenda as possible while they lock down the measures which they’ve already passed before America can send them packing.

These unconscionable acts fit only for saboteurs and traitors place ideology and partisanship above the welfare of country.

To which I say if Democrats really want a bloodbath this November now that the American people are warned, the people should grant them their wishes. Any Democrat running for office this November in local, State or National elections should bear the consequences of their psychopathic Congressional Democrat leadership.

If Democrats feel that they are going to go out while destroying democracy on their ways to the exit doors the American people should rid their government of as many of these psychopaths and possible.

Moreover, if Democrats proceed with their plans to muscle through more of their partisan agenda before they leave, then let the voters send so many Democrats out this November that no other party would think of lifting a contemptuous middle finger at the American people because the people had enough and voted the scoundrels out!

Kagan Like Obama Shows ignorance of foundational American beliefs

Kagan being welcomed to the “Old Boys” club by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), right, and his colleagues Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), second from right, and Sen. Jeff Session (R-Ala.), back left, as she enters the hearing room.

Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)

Yeah re-read the Federalist papers because you clearly don’t understand the basis of U.S. jurisprudence Ms. Kagan. You may also consider some of our other fine Founding Documents Ms. Kagan.

It is the birth certificate of our Nation, The Declaration of Independence. In it are the reasons, beliefs and justifications, which guided the men who gave birth to the idea that became the United States of America.

By It’s principles the Founding Fathers wrote the United States Constitution. They wrote the constitution in hopes that Americans never be subjugated to Oligarchies, Depots or Tyrants ever again. That, I think, is a very important thing to know if you are vying to be a part of the leadership of this country.

One would think that someone who is interviewing for a position on the United States Supreme Court would know the tenants of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. One would also think that a Supreme court nominee would be knowledgeable about the body of work that made both the Declaration and Constitution possible.

Equally, one would think that a Dean of a Law school would have a better understanding of the fundamental principles that gave raise to both of these sentinels of American law. So it was surprising to see Elena Kagan demonstrate ignorance of the historical record of our country’s jurisprudence.

Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I --I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution, and my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and other laws of the United States.—Elena Kagan

If Ms. Kagan doesn’t have a view of what natural rights are and if she isn’t readily familiar with the Federalist papers she has closed herself off from the vision of what American jurisprudence is meant to be. That is what Sen. Tom Coburn was able to demonstrate with his line of questioning. (see 1:56mins video)




Ms. Kagan’s indicated to Sen. Coburn that her view of judging is an inbred insular approach from which she has no appreciation for original intent. Instead she seems comfortable relying on current decisions which could or could not be in keeping with the Founders view of constitutional law depending on whether judges believe that their own interpretations are more current and therefore superior to original intent. Here is an example of that in an exchange between Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan:

COBURN:
I -- I would want you to always act on the basis of a belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.

KAGAN:
I -- I think you should want me to act on the basis of law, and -- and that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be concerned -- to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of haw, which is the Constitutions and the statutes of the United States.

COBURN:
Going back to the Second Amendment, what we know with the two most recent cases is that they didn't necessarily take away the precedent in the Miller, does it?

KAGAN:
I'm sorry?

COBURN:
They don't necessarily take away the precedent of Miller.

KAGAN:
As -- as I've not read McDonald yet, because of these hearings, but if I understand Heller correctly, Heller -- Heller did not find it necessary to reverse Miller.

COBURN:
Right.

KAGAN:
Heller distinguished Miller, involving a different kind of weapon. (see source)

As you can see Ms. Kagan’s, “can’t see the forest for the trees” approach to judging would allow for changing the original intent of the constitution by basing her decisions on judicial decisions without an understanding of what the overall effect of her decisions would make on the country. We all know that there are activist judges.

And if law begins to change because a judge feels it’s time for a sea change in society and another judge, such as Kagan, cites that judgment as precedence to support a newer decision one can see how Ms. Kagan’s method of judging would begin taking law down a slippery slope away from the constitution. This approach is judging based on current popular opinion of the law rather than judging based upon what the intent of the law really is. That is why Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

For instance Massachusetts Federal Judge Joseph Tauro just legislated from the bench by striking down federal law, DOMA. Homosexuals are already calling for California Judge Vaughn Walker to use this ruling as a means to change the California Constitution in a case that is pending his ruling. California’s Constitution was amendment to defines marriage as it has always been define in California and throughout the annuals of human history and human law.

If the Judge rules against the people of California he wouldn’t be able to do it on precedence. He’ll have to use fiat rulings like to one in Massachusetts impose a similar oligarchical decision on the people of California.

That is why Sen. Coburn was questioning Ms. Kagan along these lines of natural law. If a person like Kagan is confirmed she would undoubtedly, as supported by her testimony before the judicial committee, be in favor of this type judicial legislating from the bench.

If Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is looking for a little more ammunition in order to shoot down Proposition 8, one of his Massachusetts colleagues just gave him some.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Thursday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause. Congress passed DOMA in 1996, defining marriage as a heterosexual union for purposes of a host of federal benefits and classifications.--Dan Levine (see source)

Knowing this why would any Republican vote to confirm Kagan? Well we know that so far, nine republicans won’t vote to confirm her, and they are; Mike Johanns(Neb), Johnny Isakson (Ga), John McCain (Az), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jim DeMint (S.C.), James M. Inhofe (Okla).

So what of the other 32 Republican Senators which of them will vote for Kagan? (see graph)

Whoever that Republican is we will know that that person has no understanding of the Progressive agenda. If that person understood the Progressive agenda but voted to confirm Kagan anyway that person hates the constitution as much as president Soetoro and Ms. Kagan does.

Below is 20 minutes plus of Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan exchange. (see 20:51min video)




Ms. Kagan made it evident that her knowledge of the foundations of American jurisprudence is quite limited which spurred the request from Sen. Coburn for Ms. Kagan to re-read the Federalist papers.

It's my appeal for you to go back and look at the Federalist Papers and what are -- I -- I thought they had tremendous wisdom.

They weren't -- they didn't get it all right, but they sure got a lot of it right, and the proof's in the pudding of where we are today.—Sen. Tom Coburn

Which lead to Ms. Kagan to break a self imposed pledge of only making a single pledge for the hearings. Ms. Kagan amended her pledge to included that she would re-read the Federalist papers. Good for her! I hope she includes the Declaration and the Constitution as well.

Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan

Republicans should let Democrats confirm their partisan nominee. And equally let’s hope Ms. Kagan learns something about the law and judging according to the Constitution.

A Black Panther in Sheep’s Clothing living in the White house?

King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson,The New Black Panthers

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.” —King Samir Shabazz, The New Black Panthers

Should White People be concerned about the Obama administration?

If you never read Barry Hussein Soetoro’s book, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance you wouldn’t know that president Soetoro harbors racial attitudes that were held by radical Blacks of the 1960’s. Attitudes of hate against “Whitey” that was prevalent in the most radical of Black power groups.
Following are excerpts of Soetoro’s book in addition to his views on race over the years. (see 9:53mins video)




If you were paying just a little attention you would have recognized that something was amiss a year ago this month when Soetoro said a White Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley who arrested a Black professor and friend of Soetoro, Louis Gates, Jr., acted stupidly. What was interesting was Soetoro not knowing the facts reacted in a knee jerk anti- White man manner after hearing of the arrest of his college professor friend.

In addition to the just mentioned, America was dressed down by Soetoro’s Attorney General Eric Holder who accused us all of being a nation of cowards regarding discussing race. (see 4:06mins video)




Eric Holder’s office has pulled that plug on the most egregious act of voter intimidation in recent memory. Black Panthers on election day November 2008 stood in front of voter polls and verbally intimidated and verbally assaulted white people while holding a nightstick. Staff attorneys in the AG office had already gotten a summary judgment against New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson.

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. --Jerry Seper

Because of the DOJ dismissal of the case against the New Black Panthers, the attorney working the case, J. Christian Adams resigned from the AG’s office to protest the sheer racial politicizing of a case involving Black on White voter intimidation in 2008. (see article)

J. Christian Adams said he resigned last month because of the Justice Department's decision to not pursue its case. (see article) and (here)

Mr. Adams resigned because of the double standard of the Soetoro administration. There was evidence of hate speech from at least one of the defendants, King Samir Shabazz. But instead of allowing, the case to go forward the Eric Holder justice department quashed the case.

Shabazz was the defendant that wielded the nightstick in front of a Philadelphia polling place. First, look at Mr. Shabazz intimidating at the polls November 2008(see 1:21min. video)




And then more background on King Samir Shabazz. Mr. Shabazz is a self-proclaimed racist who hates White people and wants to kill White babies.

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.” —King Samir Shabazz, The New Black Panthers (see 10:14min video)

Eric Holder and Barry Hussein Soetoro dropped the case against the New Black Panthers instead of prosecuting them for voter intimidation on election day November 2008. At the very least, the Panthers should have been tried for hate speech and the voter intimidation, for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why was the case against King Samir Shabazz and the New Black Panthers dropped, when DOJ had sufficient evidence to take him and the New Black panthers to trial? Does the president hate White people too? Is the president a closet Black Panther? Or is he just sympathetic to their cause?

Eric Holder and Barry Hussein Soetoro must answer these questions. Should White citizens of the United States fear the Barry Hussein administration?

Obama admits he wants to give Illegal Aliens Amnesty. Happy anti-Independence Day!

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

The date, July 1, 2010 just three days prior to the nation’s 234 birthday, in 4,110 words and in 34 minutes 48 seconds president Barry Hussein Soetoro told the American people that it is his intention to give 40 million illegal Mexican Citizens in this country amnesty. That is his wish in spite of the continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy of illegally entering this country by the Country and people of Mexico.

Shockingly the president of the United States of America is willing to aid and abet this conspiracy as is United States Federal Government. President Soetoro’s complicitous act essentially, would make Mexicans dual citizens of both countries able to vote in both the United States’ and in Mexico’s elections.

The ramifications of such dual citizenship on the sovereignty of the United States are worst than the real and permanent ecological damage from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a spill that president Soetoro has been unable to stop. Moreover, the ramifications of creating such a special class of people is worst than any of the false cataclysmic scenarios that the debunked theory of carbon dioxide induced Global warming (which was supposed to unleash devastation upon the world) a debunked theory, which president Soetoro still promotes.

Soetoro began his pre anti-Independence Day speech by mixing both the concepts, of legally immigrating to this country, with illegally entering this country. These concepts are clearly not the same but there he stood weaving them together as if no one would notice and like he doesn’t care whether Americans did or didn’t notice.

Interestingly, by about three-fourths into his speech, the whole illusion imploded onto itself and the president did something that advocates for Mexican Amnesty never do, he told the truth. (see transcript) (see 34:48min video)



Usually advocates of Mexican Amnesty employ verbal dishonestly which amounts to calling a bank robber “a customer making a cash withdrawal,” Or calling a rapist “a ladies’ man” when they insist on referring to citizens of Mexico who violate United States immigration laws as “immigrants.” When advocates of illegal aliens use such Orwellian language, there can be no honest debate because of the dishonest terminology.

President Soetoro in this one moment acknowledged that Mexicans citizens are in the United States illegally and living in the shadows thus, they are breaking U.S. law. However, he did also state there is nothing that Americans can do about it. Instead, the president employed a deviated and twisted logic to sell a plan to the American people, a wrong plan to give American citizenship to the citizens of Mexico.

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship—president Barry Hussein Soetoro

The president’s plan is simply to make illegals, legal. That would be tantamount to making robbery legal or to granting amnesty to a bank robber who stole millions of dollars. Under a president Soetoro’s “bank robber’s “Amnesty plan the United States would make the robber pay taxes on the money he robbed. Make him pay a fine, make him go to business school and then make him president of the bank that he robbed because there is nothing that we can do to change the fact that he robbed the bank. Besides, His children have become accustomed to living off the pilfered money. It wouldn’t be fair to deprive the children of their lifestyle.

The above scenario of “bank robber’s” amnesty is how the Soetoro deviant and twisted logic of granting amnesty to illegals sounds to normal Americans.
In president Soetoro’s speech, he vacillated between Orwellian language meant to obscure meaning and language with real intent. Below are highlights of the president’s speech (in italics) with Creating Orwellian Worldview explanation of what he really means in (bold):

And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.

This is to set up fraudulent argument that the “Immigration system” is broken. The “system” was not designed to take in millions of people in the fashion that illegals are entering this country. Furthermore, in order to be considered broken the system would have to be functioning in a manner different from the way it was designed to function. It is not.

The system is working the way it was designed to function. The forces behind Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) want something that the system is not designed to deliver. The argument that the system is broken is a false argument.

The argument that the system is broken is a ruse a con in order to get Comprehensive Immigration Reform and everyone knows it.

Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new

This statement is an attempt to defer responsibility for the tension that the president has intentionally caused with his calls for CIR.

Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy — than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.

The president purposely confuses Immigrant with Illegal Alien entry here. But that’s not the half of it. The reality of it is, unemployment in this country is 9.5% , 14.5 million Americans are out of work and have been out of work for months. The economy is in the dumper. Our competitors China’s and India’s economies are red hot. There is China with low wageworkers and India with American jobs, which were outsourced by American corporations. These U.S. Corporations are exploiting low wage, highly educated, non-unionized populace in India usuriously increasing their profit margins.

Introducing 40 million plus additional workers into an already jobless and ailing economy is not only suicidal but also unwise. (see here and here)

being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

Where in the annuals of American history have we ever heard such nonsense? Not a matter of blood? Tell that to the Americans throughout history that gave their blood in war and in duty to this country that died for this country. And not a matter of birth?

Tell that to the millions of illegals that sneak across the border to have their babies born in America or tell that to the Article II Section 1 of the Constitution which reads: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Or tell that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.

Again purposely confusing immigration and illegal entry. The process that he is speaking of is granting Amnesty to illegal aliens not to people that immigrated by legal means.

Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances.

So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.

While it is true that immigration has been contentious throughout America’s history, However, the conversation that America is presently having is not about immigration it is about illegal entry into this country as the president in this very speech acknowledges.

To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

It is only a recent phenomenon for our government to ignore the willful breaking of U.S. immigration laws by official mandate of non-enforcement of law.

The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.

11 million is what officials will admit to. The numbers are more like 40 million. The question goes begging, Why aren't we talking about the broken country of Mexico. A country which 40million or 11 million of its citizens would abandon it to “seek a better life” by exploiting another country economy?

billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.

This is a true statement. Billions of dollars that could pay American workers.

More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally.

This again a true statement

In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling

The Immigration system is not broken. The Federal government is broken. The country of Mexico is broken. Attempting to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a political stunt. The Soetoro administration is attempting to take advantage of a crisis.

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.

Arizona is the only state that is fighting for the American dream. Arizona is fighting to preserve America. Arizona’s law is the right thing to do when the Federal government is broken and refuses to do its job. There is no real debate here. Only those who would attempt to destroy America with false arguments while allowing lawbreakers to justify breaking the law.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.

This is a false argument. The Arizona law is written to prevent the violation of citizen’s rights. Not to mention, legal resident are subject to possible stops and questioning for how they look and sound all the time. Why should Mexican’s be any different?

Our task then is to make our national laws actually work

This is a suppose to be our task but it is not with regards to the issue of illegal entry. Democrats have tasked themselves to increase their voters rolls through granting 40 million Mexican citizens American citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go along with it.

Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally

Ahh so now the truth is told the so-called “immigrants” are actually illegal aliens who have worked the system to create an anomaly of illegality. They create a false legality of children who are deemed American citizens to anchor themselves in the United States. This is not what the 14th amendment was designed to do. Using it as such is a violation of the spirit of the 14th amendment. The reality is an illegal act should never be rewarded with legitimacy.

Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.

This is a false portrayal. We are not dealing with two equally relative opinions. There is no third way. Those who support illegal entry support lawlessness. Those who support stopping illegal entry support the American constitution and the law of the land. Those who support ending illegal entry are using common sense and they reflect America heritage and American values.

Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders.

Not only a threshold responsibility but a total responsibility that includes enforcement of immigrant law even after the lawbreaker has entered the country.

So the bottom line is this: The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.

Simply not true. There is an recent urgency to cross the border that has been manufactured in the last 10 years which has created the un-safest conditions surrounding the borders in the last 20 years.

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship

People who live here illegally knew the risk when they first chose to break our laws, just like any criminal they should not benefit from their illegal act. There is no way that someone who is here illegally can earn citizenship. Earning citizenship is a privilege reserved for those who abide by the laws of the United States of America.

Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration.

There is no reason that stopping illegal immigration must be coupled with anything else.

So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform.

president Soetoro just outline a program to give 40 million Mexican citizens access to our electoral process, our welfare system, our over burdened health care system, our over worked school system and our sickly economy. He then called his outline comprehensive immigration reform.

who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.

Our immigration system is not broken. Our Federal government is broken, i.e. can’t stop the oil spill in the gulf, can’t enforce our borders, and can’t fix our ailing economy. In addition to that, Mexico is broken. Mexico can’t create jobs for 40 million Mexican citizens now residing illegally in the United States and can’t stop the violence of Mexican Drug Cartels

I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward.

what you mean president Soetoro is that you and Democrats are ready to grant Mexican citizens American citizenship. But the last I checked the American people said no to Amnesty. Step away from the Amnesty Mr. president that would be a move forward!

But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality.

It's really a matter of timing and priorities Mr. president. If you hadn’t wasted your political capitol on the bailouts, pork spending, pushing through health care (over the protest of the American people) and stimulus 1, 2 and 3 all without Republican help. You would not need “bipartisan” help now.

Your policies are what placed a limit on your ability to ram your agenda down the throats of Americans without Republican support. The American people respond by sending Scott Brown to scale down your reckless spending and social engineering. We are quite aware of the political and mathematical reality. That is how we plan to stop you from doing another thing to harm America.

One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground.

Wrong! In 1881–1920, 2 million Eastern European Jews immigrate to the United States. You presently have 40 million Mexicans illegally entering the United States and no racial persecution either. Just a pathetic and broken country.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Mr. president the statue of Liberty was a gift from the French. You really should bone up on American history . By the way, America has 50 states not 59 as you suppose! Also you are wrong again the American people donated for the base on which the statue of Liberty stands not the statue itself which again was a gift to the United States from France.

Finally, the fact is the United States of America does not have a broken immigration system. The fact is Mexico is a broken country. Mexico is a country that is exporting its poverty, its crime, its problems of lack of economic infrastructure and insolvency to the United States . Mexico is broken.

If Mexico could support the 40 million Mexicans, who are presently illegally in the United States with jobs in their own country those illegals would leave the United States and go back home to Mexico. Mexico is broken not the United States immigration system.

Yet instead of arguing the brokenness of the country of Mexico which is the fundamental reason for this argument of CIR the President like every other Progressive has turned the argument on its head and is arguing that the United States’ system is broken because the U.S. system is not intended to accommodate the border run of 40 million Mexico people. It is a phenomenon that no country in the history of the world has had to accommodate and no other country would be able to withstand.

President Soetoro attempted fast sell of the America people on the idea that illegal entry into this country is comparable to the long history of legal immigration that is a part of American heritage, the Ellis Island experience. It is not Mr. Soetoro.

Mr. Soetoro don’t you understand that there is a difference between immigrating to the United States legally and illegally entering the United States by sneaking across the border? Apparently, you do not sir, but we do. We are not as foolish as you think we are Mr. president.

Republicans to Democrats: Confirm your partisan judicial nominee along party line

In a written statement, McConnell quoted Kagan as telling the Senate Judiciary Committee this week it is "difficult to take off the advocate's hat and put on the judge's hat."
The statement added, "That difficulty is particularly acute for someone like Ms. Kagan, who has spent so much of her adult life practicing the art of political advocacy rather than practicing law."--DAVID ESPO

59-41

That’s all you need to know regarding the Elena Kagan confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Those are the numbers by which she most likely will be confirmed, unless of course some Republican Senator doesn’t get it and decides to cast his or her vote with Democrats to confirm her. (see article)

By “doesn’t get it,” I’m referring to why Kagan was selected by president Soetoro. Kagan is the Progressive’s attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. If you haven’t noticed by now Barry Hussein Soetoro and Democrats have politicized everything—every aspect of government and every aspect of our lives since Democrats took complete control of government.

So more directly, Liberals know that they will remain slightly outnumbered on the court. Until they can remedy that little inconvenience, what they are hoping for is to neutralize the Conservative’s one-person advantage with Kagan.

Kagan is supposed to be a political consensus builder with the unique ability to argue the Progressive point of view so convincingly that she solidifies the liberal block of the court. In addition, she is there to woo Conservative Justices with Siren like Progressive arguments in hopes of luring the unsuspecting Conservative Justice(s) into join the Liberal bloc thus crashing the Conservative bloc on the court onto the jagged rocks of Progressivism until such a time that Progressives can dominate the court by the sheer strength of their numbers.

[A Supreme Court nominee needs] "both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy, regrettably [Elena Kagan] does not meet this standard."—Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

To carry out this plan Kagan will need the political acumen of a John Marshall , a William Howard Taft or an Earl Warren all politicians (rather than judges) who were appointed to the Supreme Court. Like the appointees of yesteryear Democrat Progressives were urging President Soetoro to go backward to appoint a politician rather than a judge as was done in the past since Democrats first got the notice of Justice John Paul Stevens’ retirement. The president complied to their wishes with Elena Kagan.(see here and here)

Therefore, a vote for Kagan isn’t because she is a well-qualified judge, she isn’t. Neither is it because she has the experience or the judicial temperament to be a Justice on the court. She doesn’t. No, a vote for Kagan is like everything else that we have seen by Democrats and Barry Hussein Soetoro; from bailouts to stimulus, to health care, to Illegal entry into this country, to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is all political to Democrats. All for some perceived political advantage. Democrats politicize everything at the expense of what is good for the country.

Now they are going to politicize the Supreme Court. Meaning that instead of nine justices attempting to adjudicate by the constitution and derive at what is best for the country there will be one Justice who is a mole and her purpose is to attempt to steer decisions down partisan lines for no other reason than for what’s best for Liberal Democrats Progressives’ ideology. This act will make the Supreme Court—a court that is supposed to be apolitical—as partisan as the Congress. Ergo, there is always some underlying supposition with a Liberal Democrat pushing the Progressive agenda.

Kagan is not the finest legal mind available. She has no judicial experience and there are at least hundreds of not thousands of lawyers with the same if not better legal expertise as Kagan. However, what Kagan does have that they don’t, is for most of her adult life Kagan has be practicing the art of partisan political advocacy for politically contacted Progressives rather than practicing law.

Kagan acknowledged people “can tell something about my views” based on her work for former President Bill Clinton and as solicitor general in the Obama administration, but vowed to separate her beliefs from any deliberations she would make from the high court’s bench.
“My politics would be — have to be — separate from my judging,” she said during a second day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee.-- Susan Crabtree, The Hill

Kagan is an admitted partisan. I seem to remember that particular Judge in the past having been Borked for less partisanship than Kagan. A Republican Senator who cast a vote for the confirmation of Elena Kagan will be casting a vote for transforming the Supreme Court into a political instrument of the Left. That is why me thinks, the lady had to attest that she would set her politics aside and only apply the law as bound by the constitution.

That task me thinks will be harder for Kagan to accomplish than that of the Argonauts of Greek Mythology sailing pass the Siren songs of the flowery island of Anthemoessa.

Yet, even though Kagan’s confirmation will be detrimental to the Republic and to the Country, she will receive some Republican votes. The 59-41 party line split by which she will be confirm by inevitability will be bloated to 63- 37 by defecting self-serving Republicans who place political correctness over integrity, honor and country. Moreover, that will depend largely on whether Republican Leadership can hold their caucus together, like Democrats have done for the past 10 to 11 years.

NASA: Making Muslims Feel Good where they’ve never felt good before!

NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden

When I became NASA administrator or before I became the NASA administrator he charged me with three things; one was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math. He wanted me to expand our international relationships. And third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominant Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering.—Charles Bolden, NASA

NASA has a new mission under president Barry Hussein Soetoro and it isn’t to boldly go [in space] where no man has gone before. Moreover, NASA’s primary mission isn’t to revisit the moon or to even land on an asteroid for now.

On Talk to Jazeera an English speaking Islamic television show the New Administrator of NASA, Charles Bolden a Black man, on the first anniversary of president Barry Hussein Soetoro Cairo speech is visiting in the Islamic world and interviewing in an effort to encourage Muslims according to Mr. Bolden.

Mr. Bolden said that the president charged him with three things. To re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, second to expand international relationships. Third and foremost, the president charged Mr. Bolden to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more the predominant Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science math and engineering. (see 21:54min video)




Third to redirecting NASA to track the fictitious phenomenon of Global Warming, and spending money to have astronauts land on an Asteroid this new president Soetoro initiative to have NASA expend human and material resources for Muslim relations is perhaps the most wasteful of American space resources that the United States government has ever ventured on.

How to get a not so stealth anti-Constitutionalist confirmed onto the Supreme Court

The Social Progressive connections of Elena Kagan

Barry Hussein Soetoro is an anti-Constitutionalist President. He has so much as said so himself. So he needs an ally on the Supreme Court, someone who shares his views—views such as the Constitution is a flawed document and flawed individuals wrote the Constitution. As such, the Constitution’s relevance for a new progressive era is questionable at best and just hopelessly archaic at worst.

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that is carried on until this day and the framers had that same blind spot.

And I don’t think that the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues until this day.—Barry Hussein Soetoro (hear 28sec. audio)

By education, training and association Elena Kagan holds the same philosophy about the constitution as the president does yet he has been able to mask it so well. Yet, that is why he selected her.

So in the most ironic sense the question is how to get someone who is devoted to changing the constitution (destroying the constitution is the more appropriate word) onto the court.

Following is a step-by-step plan how president Barry Hussein Soetoro plans to get Elena Kagan onto the highest court of the land while garnering support from those who claim that they support the Constitution.

First, select a nominee who shares your very ultra-progressive ideologies but has no judicial experience form which to trace it. In addition, the person selected must not have an extensive formal legal writing history.

This guarantees that your candidate’s views, like yours, are hard to discern. Opposition will have very little documented evidence of your nominee’s anti-Constitutional views.

Second, characterize all criticism of your nominee as smears. Such a mischaracterization automatically will put anyone who has legitimate criticism on the defensive and limit what could be pertinent discussion about your nominee’s anti-constitutionalism. (see article)

Third, make sure that your nominee’s radical ideas are presented in such a way that no matter how unconstitutional they are people will think that the ideas represent the progressiveness of moving forward. For instance, take the argument supporting a law, which gives the FEC the authority to ban books, which Kagan argued before the Supreme Court.

The way, which Kagan argued it was basically if there were a law to ban books the FEC, has never banned books before because people are too progressively enlightened to do such a thing. So subsequently, a law that would permit the banning of books by the FEC wouldn’t be a problem. Fortunate for Americans the Supreme Court didn't buy Kagan's argument.(hear 2:41min audio)



Of course, you could always use the direct truthful approach Ms Kagan. Which, goes something like this, Look I’m a progressive ideologue. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows it. So what are you going to do about it?

You Republicans are too feckless to Bork me. Half of you Conservatives are already ready to confirm me. In addition, Democrats don’t really know what I will do once I’m confirmed but they'll do anything to get a Soetoro win so they’re going to confirm me over their fears, that I might not be progressive enough.

Bottom line is this, Democrats have the power to confirm me so this whole process has been a far gone conclusion since day one when the president announced my nomination and nothing has changed.

Yep what we are witnessing is a progressive cakewalk onto the Supreme Court and Democrats and president Soetoro are making it appear to be as easy as pie. Some good does come out of it for Conservatives though, but not much. We can identify all of the Republicans who vote for Kagan.

We’ll need to know just who those Republicans were when Kagan starts undermining the Constitution right from the bench of the Supreme Court. We’ll want to make sure that Republicans, who lent their support, to president Soetoro nominee (and who should have known better) will receive their just rewards the next time they face the electorate.

Sen. Lindsey Graham are you listening?

Kagan: Court wrong to strike down dumb or senseless laws

Elena Kagan:To late to worry about sounding dumb

But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional.

And I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless—Elena Kagan

Huh? It’s a dumb law so thinks Supreme Court hopeful Elena Kagan of the hypothetical law posed by Sen. Tom Coburn during the Judiciary confirmation hearings. The hypothetical law would allow Congress to mandate that Americans eat fruits and vegetables daily.

It’s a simple question really, Sen. Coburn asked Ms. Kagan should Congress tell Americans what they can or cannot eat? Simple if you aren’t attempting to become a Supreme Court Justice with a hidden agenda that is.

Sen. Coburn, posed the hypothetical question about Congress passing a law that would require all Americans to eat three fruits and three vegetables a day to Ms. Elena Kagan the most brilliant legal mind that president Barry Hussein Soetoro could think of to nominate for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Shockingly Ms. Kagan could not answer the question. (see 1:19min Video)




Any 5-year-old could have answered that question, but the Harvard trained former Solicitor General for the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration was miffed by it to the extent that she refuse to answer. (see article)

Because Kagan could not or would not answer the question concerning government force-feeding, that only confirms she places ideology and partisanship above unbiased judicial discretion. We have been warned.

Kagan thinks that it would be wrong for the court to strike down dumb or senseless laws. I think the Senate would be wrong to voting to confirm such a dumb and senseless partisan!

Kagan will be confirm by a Democrat controlled Senate because she is an ideologue partisan who will try to reinterpret the constitution from the bench. And that is exactly the kind of person that Barry Hussein Soetoro wants as a justice.

It is for that reason he nominated her.