Posts Tagged ‘federal judge’

Finger Pointing Over Murdered American Woman: San Francisco, Obama Say It’s Other’s Fault. BOTH Are Utterly EVIL. As Is Hillary Clinton.

July 10, 2015

As we speak, the Sheriff of San Francisco County says it’s all Obama’s ICE’s fault that the illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times before he found his heart in San Francisco and realized he was immune from justice and from whatever you want to call “the law” when liberals are in charge.

And, of course, the Sheriff is absolutely right.  Barack Obama has the blood of Kathryn Steinle – along with at least 121 other murdered Americans – on his hands due to his wicked policies that free vicious criminals because they are illegal immigrants and Obama is the very worst kind of cynical partisan demagogue.

This murderous turd Juan-Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is merely ONE of more than 347,000 illegal immigrant criminals that Obama has released.

We know that Barack Hussein Obama is completely responsible for this vile policy of catch and release criminals whenever they happen to be illegal immigrants for several reasons: 1) is that he’s already done it hundreds of thousands of times; 2) is that he viciously went after the Arizona Law claiming that the federal government has sole and solitary sovereignty whenever it comes to any matter involving our borders, border security or the treatment of illegal immigrants, but there are more than 200 cities, counties and states in America that are considered “sanctuary cities” – and REQUIRE a refusal to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport an illegal immigrant – and Obama has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to go after these lawless liberals the way he made an example of the ONE conservative state that actually tried to stop the flood of illegal criminals from pouring into Arizona; and 3) is this:

The head of ICE, Ms. Saldaña, was very clearly ordered by the Obama administration to completely reverse herself after she made the mistake of representing her agency and her officers as opposed to the partisan political agenda of Obama:

Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, ‘[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can’t comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

The Obama White House refuses to answer questions. They say talk to Homeland Security – having of course ordered Homeland Security not to answer any questions or to pass the buck to San Francisco.

So Obama and his lawless thugs are trying to point fingers at San Francisco, but their fingers, their toes, their heads, and everything else are coated in BLOOD.  And it is not only irrational but immoral for the Obama White House to try to dodge responsibility for their ONGOING SUPPORT OF THESE SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES.

There’s also a 4) and here it is presented by Megyn Kelly:

This sheriff himself a convicted criminal says, he stands by the city’s policy. Kate’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrant, sanctuary cities in crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city’s decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?

And just in case you think I’ve run out of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is entirely to blame for this murderer being released to murder and frankly ought to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony murder, there’s a 5):

Barack Hussein Obama is a lawless criminal thug who has ordered his top immigration enforcement officials to refuse to cooperate with the law. After a judge specifically ordered these officials to stop doing what was illegal, they continued to do their wicked Führer’s wicked and flagrantly criminal bidding. Obama criminally and illegally issued some 2,000 unlawful work authorizations in flagrant violation of federal law and continued to do so even after being ordered to cease and desist.

Which simply is one more example of many examples of a strategy that our lawless thug in chief routinely employs: to only bother with enforcing or allowing to be enforced laws that our naked ideologue fascist thug-in-chief wants to enforce, and to hell with all the laws he doesn’t like.  As Politico reports:

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws
By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT  Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

I hope you notice how prominent a far leftist approach to illegal immigration is to Obama’s lawless criminal thuggery.  I also hope you notice that being a lawless, fascist THUG is the core of Obama.  The Bible calls it “the mystery of lawlessness” that we would see in the very final days just before the ultimate political beast otherwise known as the Antichrist comes.  We were told in advance that wickedness and lawlessness would abound and the righteous would be stunned at the inability to do a damn thing about it.

But I suspect there’s a liberal out there who thinks, “No WAY he’s got a sixth reason to blame Kate Steinle’s murder on my messiah.”  Well, I actually do.  So here’s reason 6):

Obama has said at least 22 times that he didn’t have the power to shield illegal immigrants: and then did in blatant and criminal defiance of the Constitution what he himself said he didn’t have the power to do.  According to Obama’s despicable and treasonous actions – again, not according to me but to Obama’s own previous statements – Barack Obama is not a president, but a KING, he’s not a president of the United States, he’s an EMPEROR.  And he is entirely responsible for the mess that he has created as our tyrannous emperor god-king.

Again, the day Barack Hussein Obama raised his demon-possessed fingers and took the oath of office, Kate Steinle’s murder became a fait accompli.  Obama and liberalism murdered that woman, straight up.

Now, mind you, the Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is a liberal, and therefore evil, and San Francisco is as evil and therefore as liberal as it gets.  So it should surprise NO ONE that Sheriff didn’t even bother to acknowledge the murdered victim until he was nearly finished with his smarmy lecture – and when he finally deigned to do so, he mispronounced her name.

Realize that the liberal, wicked city of San Francisco ACTUALLY REQUESTED THIS MURDEROUS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TURD FROM FEDERAL CUSTODY JUST SO THEY COULD RELEASE HIM:

A bitter dispute over who bears responsibility for the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kathryn Steinle last week in San Francisco, has taken a surprise twist with the revelation that the San Francisco sheriff’s department asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons for custody of the 45-year-old Mexican national back in March.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the San Francisco sheriff’s department, which is headed by progressive sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Prisons on March 23 asking to be notified “when [Lopez-Sanchez is ready for our pick-up.”

Lopez-Sanchez was at the end of a 46-month sentence in a federal prison in Victorville, Cal. for felony illegal re-entry. But San Francisco had a $5,000 bench warrant from 1995 on Lopez-Sanchez for a marijuana possession for sale case, and the sheriff’s department sought to take custody of him.

And then there is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Right now this cynical political whore who stands for NOTHING but her own naked power and self-enrichment at the tit of big government and the worst kind of crony capitalism is piling on the evil sanctuary city policies that led to this unholy murder. But let’s take a look at the real Hilllary Rodham Clinton who dove into Kate Steinle’s blood and did a “blood angel”:

Hillary Clinton Supports Sanctuary Cities That Protect Dangerous Illegal Immigrants, Would Expand Similar Policies
Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests.
By Taylor Tyler | Jul 07, 2015 10:57 AM EDT

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat from pundits over her previous unabashed support of sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and thereby afford deportation protection to illegal immigrants.

Kate Steinle’s tragic murder could likely have been prevented if the city of San Francisco had notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez’s release from its custody, yet due to the city’s decades-long sanctuary policy, he was released onto the streets without a word, where he went on to kill 32-year-old Steinle. Sanchez had already been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests, notes The Daily Caller.

It was in September 2007 when then-Sen. Clinton said during a presidential debate that she supported sanctuary cities because they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

“If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes,” she said. “You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

Debate moderator Tim Russert then asked Clinton, “You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”

Clinton responded, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re the local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they also think you are going to be enforcing immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton expressed her support again in 2008 in an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News:

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities,” O’Reilly asked, to which Clinton responded, “No, I’m not.”

More recently, in May, Clinton pledged to expand President Obama’s executive immigration actions, which have further legitimized sanctuary cities.

“If Congress refuses to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” Clinton said, reported The Washington Examiner. “I will fight to stop the partisan attacks on the president’s executive actions.”

Jessica Vaughan, policy director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained to The Daily Caller what a Clinton White House could look like.

“Hillary Clinton’s recent public statements indicate that she intends to outdo the Obama administration in dismantling immigration laws, so there is good reason to be concerned that this problem would get worse under a Clinton administration, and that more local governments would either be encouraged or coerced into obstructing ICE,” Vaughan said. “I would expect another Clinton administration to stoop to the same kind of legal hi-jinks, abuse of authority, disregard of safety and security, and then evasion of accountability, much as we witnessed when she was Secretary of State.”

Yes, there was a time when Hillary Clinton took the exact OPPOSITE view, just like she took many other exact opposite views such as leading the support for the Iraq War before being one of the most hypocritical turncoats on the very war that she supported to the betrayal of the American serviceman who had to continue to fight the war she betrayed.  Here she is saying she was opposed to sanctuary cities because as a liberal progressive NAZI all Hillary Clinton really gives a damn about is her own power and she will betray any one or any thing or any principle to grab that power:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

Note that when it was politically expedient to do so, Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “adamantly against illegal immigration,” NO: she was against IMMIGRANTS.  The leftist propaganda media loves to frame Republicans as “anti-immigrant,” but here’s the POSTER BITCH for being “adamantly against immigrants.”  Further, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are only “adamantly against” anything that would get in the way of their god Lucifer taking over the United States of America after they’re finished kicking Jesus Christ to the curb; that’s the ONLY thing they’re “adamantly opposed” to.  For anything else, they’ll be adamantly against it before they’re just as adamantly for it before they’re adamantly against it again.  And all that matters to them is that they can lie, lie, lie their way to power and to more power.

Basically, liberalism is evil.  Liberals are evil.  And every resident of San Francisco and frankly every single American deserves to die because the people we put in power are fascist cockroaches from hell.

Here’s an idea: make sanctuary cities the next Confederate flag: ban them, ban anyone who now does or ever HAS supported them, burn them all down to the ground.  Or just wallow in your disgusting hypocrisy.

Yet Another Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Mandate Unconstitutional

September 15, 2011

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama – a “constitutional scholar,” we were told – gives one slimy cockroach crap about the U.S. Constitution.  Recently, before deciding that his government would not follow (i.e. that the Obama regime would BREAK) federal immigration law and refuse to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who had had their day in court and LOST, Obama told a Hispanic group the following in explaining why he couldn’t do what they wanted:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And then a few weeks later Obama did the very thing he himself had categorically stated was both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

He also previously similarly ignored federal law – law passed by both branches of Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton – and decreed that his government would ignore the Defense of Marriage Act.  He has now held that the power of law resides within the power of the Führer alone.  The law doesn’t matter if Obama doesn’t like it.  He alone as our Messiah stands transcendantly above the law and the rule of law.

So it doesn’t surprise me whatsoever that he rammed a despicable undemocratic and unconstitutional takeover of the health care system.  He has PROVEN that he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution or the rule of law.

Pa. fed judge knocks down key Obamacare health care requirement
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
By MARC LEVY,
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The requirement in the national health-care overhaul law that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday in a question that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to settle.

The suit decided by Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg is one of more than 30 lawsuits nationwide that have been filed over the 2010 law that is President Barack Obama’s signature initiative.

Conner, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, said the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The nation undoubtably faces a health care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant. The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’s efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”

But Conner rejected an argument by the plaintiffs — a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and Gregory Bachman — that the mandate is “disastrous to this nation’s future, such as the Bachmans’ prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results … are both unproductive and unpersuasive.”

While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.

Separate lawsuits have already reached appeals courts in Richmond, Va., Atlanta and Cincinnati, with one of those courts ruling against the mandate.

It’s time to return to the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who confronted such a socialist takeover attempt of medicine in his own day and said:

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

The polls overwhelmingly demonstrated that what was true in Reagan’s day is every bit as true today.  The American people never wanted this vile and un-American monstrosity.

It is unconstitutional.  It is an unconstitutional TAKEOVER meant to impose socialism.  Obama knows it; that’s why he will NOT let this come before the Surpreme Court where it would be overturned.  Rather, he has done everything he could to delay that day of reckoning.

Which is paralyzing businesses who need to know their cost if they are going to take the risk of hiring workers.

Barack Obama has been granting waivers to the very leftwing unions and businesses who helped Obama impose ObamaCare so that they would not have to pay the way all the OTHER Americans will have to pay.

Impeach Obama from office before he damages this nation beyond the possibility of repair.  Because that point of no return is rushing toward us.

When Assessing Obama, The Best Word Turns Out To Be ‘Contempt’

February 5, 2011

How many times have we heard some breathless-with-adoration mainstream media “journalist” tell us that Barack Obama is a “constitutional professor”?

What we actually find when examining the record is that Obama is more like a “constitutional demolition expert.”

Take a look at two recent developments to witness Obama’s contempt for our Constitution and the Separation of Powers that has kept it intact for going on 230 years:

Judge in La. holds Interior Department in contempt over offshore oil drilling moratorium
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN , Associated Press
Last update: February 2, 2011 – 8:05 PM

NEW ORLEANS – The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.

A magistrate will consider how much the companies’ attorneys should get.

An Interior Department spokeswoman wouldn’t comment. A lawyer for the companies hailed the ruling.

“We’re obviously delighted with the court’s recognition of the government’s manipulation of the judicial review process,” said Carl Rosenblum, an attorney for Hornbeck Offshore Services and other companies that sued over the first moratorium.

Realize that the Interior Department isn’t in contempt; Obama is in contempt.  The Secretary of the Interior serves at the pleasure of Barry Hussein.  The Interior Department is pursuing the will of the president.  And the president has contempt for the court, contempt for the law and naked contempt for the Constitution.

And simultaneously there is this (story from Legal Insurrection):

Monday, January 31, 2011
Florida Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient.  In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived.  By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect). 

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:

“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”

In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.

Here is the conclusion of the Order (emphasis mine):

“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. 

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.”

[Please click on that article for more on this story.]

“Contempt” is all over Obama on both of these major federal cases.  Obama is all about contempt.  Along with hypocrisy, contempt is the blood that flows through his veins.

To put it succinctly, to whatever extent Obama knows a damn thing about the Constitution, it merely makes him all the more in contempt of it, and all the more personally contemptible.

This “constitutional expert” is on the record tacitly saying, “I’m the pharaoh; I’m the emperor.  And the Constitution means whatever the hell I want it to mean.  And federal judges be damned.”

Barack Hussein’s contempt for our freedoms and the Constitution which guarantees those freedoms is evident in other areas, as well.  And we see that this rabid intolerance for freedom characterizes the thinking of the left.

For the record, this contempt for the Constitution extends beyond Obama and contaminates his entire Democrat Party

Even when liberals like Obama pay lip service to the Constitution, they only do so as a purely rhetorical device in order to ignore everything it stands for.  Because the REAL intent of the Democrat Party is “to control the people.”  Democrats believe that there is no constitutional limit on their ability to regulate the lives of the American people.  And “Democrats” and “democracy” are antonyms

Obama is making the founding fathers spin in thier graves.  And they will keep spinning in their graves until Obama is finally out of the White House on his ear in disgrace.

Obama is our first Afrocentrict socialist redistributionist radical president.  His vision of the Constitution is – to phrase it in his own terms when he demonized the Constitutiona and the founding fathers who wrote it – “fundamentally flawed.”  And because of that fundamentally flawed thinking, Obama believes that the Government should stand in the place of God and owns everything that the people create and produce.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 604 other followers