Posts Tagged ‘SCOTUS’

As Democrats Come Psychologically Unglued Over Judge Gorsuch, Remember What Dishonest Hypocrite Pieces Of Rat Filth They Are

April 4, 2017

As we see Democrats now going completely batpoop over an eminently qualified judge who received a unanimous confirmation vote when he was confirmed to the federal judgeship that was his stepping stone to the Supreme Court because he was so obviously qualified and so obviously a great choice, let’s take a trip down memory lane to examine whether Democrats have any legitimate moral grounds whatsoever to oppose – let alone try to block or filibuster – his nomination.

Let’s call those days “B.O.” for “Before Obama.”  Because Barack Obama brought a spirit of division over this nation that will literally likely be the death of this country.

Barack Obama is THE most bitterly polarizing, divisive force this nation has ever seen.  And now what he’s doing is being called a “government in exile.”

The Nazis called it a “Fifth Column.”  I call it “treason” against the United States and against the will of the people as expressed according to our democratic values and principles.

The Democrats are now “justifying” their attempt to sink this nation to a new, bitter, divisive, polarizing low because Republicans refused to call Obama’s pick (Judge Merrick Garland) for a full vote after the death of sitting Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Democrats would have you believe that they would NEVER EVER have EVER done anything like this.  Let’s see if that’s true, or if Democrats truly stands for “DEMOnic bureauCRATS” as I maintain it does.

I wrote this a couple of months ago.  It’s a good time to quote the actual, factual record again:

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

Back in 2009 I was pointing out what a total, abject LIE the heart of the Obama promise to America had turned out to be.  This guy was so damn partisan that it was beyond unreal from the moment he took office.  And yet  The New York Times had written of Obama as candidate:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Was Obama EVER a man capable of rising above partisan politics?  No.  Not even CLOSE.  Absolutely not.  As an easy example of that, as a Senator he was one of THE most radical liberal-progressives and unsuccessfully tried to filibuster Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.  Even Obama’s own party at that point acknowledged that what Obama tried to do was way, WAY too radical.

And so:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president.  And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

Through his press mouthpiece, Obama as president would ultimately – and cowardly – come to say he “regretted” his decision to be one of the most leftist partisan members of the U.S. Senate when his own damn tactics were brought up in his face to reveal the utter and abject moral hypocrisy that is “Democratic Party.”

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see.  Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it.  Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

Let’s go back to Joe Biden: Because We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

As we talk about the Republican response to Obama’s selection of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in an election year and the consequences of the Republican response today, allow me to take you on a trip down hypocrite Democrat lane from what I wrote at that time:

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”???  Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS.  Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster.  The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.  Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected.  These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.”  And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them.  And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

Democrats promise they will use the slander-tactic that they invented now known as “Borking”: This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

In the same manner, Justice Clarence Thomas literally faced down the Ku Klux Klan as a child who grew up as the child of a poor sharecropper in a house with a dirt floor – only to find the Democrats’ more evil and more psychotic and more dishonest.  As an example, the modern Klan monsters are BLACK Democrats who were willing to lynch Thomas for the sin of having a white wife.  And Democrats said in their vote, “You don’t get to do that and survive, uppity negro.”  They manufactured the very first “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves” by finding a backstabbing woman who had followed Judge Thomas from job to job for YEARS only to claim that he sexually harassed her the entire time that she had willingly kept following him.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise.  Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting.  It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei.  Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality.  You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

So what goes around comes around, Democrats.  What went around a few months ago – when Republicans refused to consider replacing the most conservative justice with an Obama-picked liberal that would overthrow the balance of the SCOTUS in an election year when the will of the people as expressed in the presidential vote was the best way to determine what the balance of the court should be – went around BECAUSE YOU DEMOCRATS STARTED IT.  Just like every other outrage, YOU did it FIRST.  Republicans didn’t do anything relating to Judge Garland that Democrats didn’t announce that they were going to do.  So let what you said you would do be done according to your word, Democrats.  Only it’s NEVER fascism when a fascist does anything, is it?  And what is now going around is the nuclear option that your side invented to use against the Republicans who are using your damned “Democrat option” now.

There is NOTHING worse than hypocrisy.  And Democrats prove every nanosecond of every day that they are the living, breathing embodiment of abject moral hypocrisy.

We are now watching Democrats across the country openly defying the laws of our land, which makes them by definition “lawless.”  If Democrats like a law, then they demand everyone else be compelled to follow that law.  Consider the Christian baker and the Christian wedding photographer who were bankrupted by Democrats because they didn’t believe in homosexual marriage and didn’t want to be forced to participate in it or endorse it.  Democrats rabidly threw EVERYTHING that hate could throw at those people whose crime was trying to live according to their faith that was the foundation for America from day one.   Consider the county clerk who refused to certify gay marriages: this woman was literally put in JAIL by Democrats for following her conscience.  Consider the Arizona law and Obama suing the state and saying immigration was the jurisdiction of the federal government and states and lower districts simply don’t have a right to interfere with the president’s federal policies.  Remember the Democrats’ argument back then that federal law PREEMPTS state law and that the federal government had the right to impose its will onto the states when it came to immigration enforcement.  Remember all that?  And now look at Democrats turn on all of that with a feral, rabid snarl when it comes to illegal immigration and our LAWS and say that they should have a right to have sanctuary cities and sanctuary states and that Donald Trump should be compelled to give them federal money in spite of their defiance of the law.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not.  The same liberals who say that Christians have no right whatsoever to a religious conscience in spite of the 1st Amendment very clearly saying something different now say that the ONLY right one can have is based on a LIBERAL conscience.  Or what I call a cockroach conscience.

Democrats are more than just genocidal baby-murdering sexual perverts today: they are true fascists who are as rabidly and even violently intolerant of anyone or anything they disagree with as the Nazis were.  They now claim that they have the right to “safe-spaces” which amounts to anyone who disagrees with them having the right to cease to exist.  Meanwhile they show up at rally after rally with VIOLENCE even as they cry that they are the victims of “intolerance.”  Because they are the very worst hypocrites in the history of the world.

Use the nuclear option.  Seat Justice Neil Gorsuch.  And next time, understanding that we are in a war to the death with liberals in this country, that we are literally fighting over whether this nation WILL survive and whether this nation even DESERVES to survive, next time get a far-rightwing pick who will truly be to the right what ACLU hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been to the left.  The next judge should believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to change, believing that a judge ought to be the determiner of whether our society changes or not, and impose his hard right conservative Republican will on the law.  Because, after all, he’s a judge, and the law is after all whatever the hell a judge says it is.  And we should keep forcing judges like that now until the left finally understands that the only hope for this nation is a return to what our founding fathers demanded from judges: that they interpret the law according to the unchanging standards of the Constitution of the United States unless and until the Congress amends it according to the system the founders provided, rather than cite “penumbras” and “emanations” as their basis for imposing their preferences onto the law of the land.

Advertisements

Critical Obama Supreme Court Nomination Fact Confirmed: Every Single Democrat In America Is A Pathologically Dishonest HYPOCRITE

March 17, 2016

I wrote about this once before (and have introduced a great many new facts that have appeared since then), but I will write about this again now that Obama has actually done it and officially started yet another vicious political fight by nominating a pick for the Supreme Court.  Today Obama nominated Merrick Brian Garland for the SCOTUS.

And then I’ll just rant on Democrats for awhile because it’s just so easy to do given the abject despicable moral hypocrites these people truly are.

Again, the Republican Party position is rather simple: Obama’s pick be damned because: a) the Democrats themselves have in their own repeated history justified ignoring Obama’s pick and b) because the American people ought to have the right to decide which Supreme Court Justice enters the SCOTUS by being able to vote for the president who makes that selection as well as the Senate who gets to confirm it within the short span of less than eight months.

Obama in his lame-duck status should not have the right to “fundamentally transform” America by “fundamentally transforming” the composition and subsequent philosophy of the Supreme Court this close to an election in which the American people would be able to say aye or nay to their own future path.

Let me further state that for Obama to wrap himself in the mantle of righteous outrage as the protector of all things Supreme Court is a JOKE given his record in which he’s been slammed down by unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him more than, well, anyone.  Humorously, the only other president who begins to compare to Obama’s pathetic toll of unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him was one William Jefferson Clinton.  Because there’s just something FASCIST in the water that Democrat presidents drink.

This just really and truly boggled the mind when I heard Obama was doing this several weeks ago:

Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting president of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.

I admit that I didn’t agree with the whole “car czar” program, but I finally agree with something that Obama’s handpicked car czar, Steven Rattner, said:

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with.”

But Barack Obama, our Divider-in-Chief, showed once again that he has nothing but DISHONOR in his wicked soul.

Obama thus becomes the very first American president to shirk attending a funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice while simultaneously  demanding that he has the divine right of kings and gods to be able to replace that Justice on the Court.  All I can say is  that I suppose history continues unbroken – BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT; HE IS AN UNAMERICAN PRESIDENT.

Obama basically told us that himself in his own biography, which he titled “Dreams FROM My Father.”  He’s not referring to dreams that he had of his father; rather he’s referring to the dreams that his father bequeathed him.  And what were Barack Obama Sr.’s dreams?  He was a MARXIST who despised countries like America.  Dinesh D’Souza very clearly documents the content of the terrible and un-American dreams that Barack Obama received from his pathologically dishonest communist daddy.

There is no question that it is technically true – and all sides affirm that fact – that Obama has “the constitutional right” to nominate someone for the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy.  Just as I have the similar constitutional right to walk into any black establishment and scream the N-word over and over and over again according to my 1st Amendment rights.  But 1) the mere fact that you have the “right” to do something doesn’t mean you ought to do it.  I have the righto to step in front of a damn bus, but if I have any brains I would realize that those brains would be splattered allover the pavement and there are consequences to my exercising my rights.  And 2) Obama had every bit as much of a right and a duty to honor the Justice he was demanding to replace at his funeral.  And he didn’t bother to show, so why should the Senate bother to show up to his nominee’s hearing???  How about instead if the U.S. Senate treats Merrick Garland the same damn way Obama treated Antonin Scalia and just refuses to show up even when they – just like Obama – easily could have done so in the name of “bipartisanship”???

Bipartisanship isn’t a river and it doesn’t flow in one direction; if you want it you have to give it.  Barack Obama is in the final year of his two-term presidency and he NEVER ONCE acted like he ever understood that or cared about even trying to understand it.  And please stop stupidly pretending otherwise, liberals.  Because to whatever extent you can show Republican representatives or senators not being properly bipartisan in a way that I can’t easily document YOUR representatives and senators not likewise being, please understand that it is uniquely a president’s duty to rise above that – and there is absolutely no question that Obama sank to new depths rather than rose to new heights in the partisan wars that he mostly ignited and inflamed with both his hostile words and his tyrannous actions.

If that isn’t enough, and frankly it is already, there is also a sacred constitutional principle called “the separation of powers.”  Each branch of government is co-equal and has the right to make its own rules that inform and govern its conduct within the Constitution.

And so also for the record, the United States Senate has the constitutional right and duty to “advise and consent” on ANY presidential nomination.  The Senate in this process has every bit as much of a constitutional right NOT to do something as Obama has to do it.  In fact, anyone who understands history should KNOW that: James Madison called the Senate “the great anchor” that dragged and prevented bad things from happening; George Washington called the Senate a cooling chamber, such as was used to cool down tea that was too hot.  The Senate as a body was more designed to prevent things from happening than it was designed to do things.  And therefore the Senate likewise has the right and duty to ADVISE Obama NOT to exploit this death by nominating anyone and the right and duty to absolutely REFUSE to consent to anybody Obama nominates.

This is called a basic fact of American history.

The SAME Constitution that gives a president the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy gives the Senate the right to say, “Up yours!” to a presidential nomination.

As a Senator himself, Barack Obama FILIBUSTERED a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it is now with Obama demanding the divine right to replace Scalia – rather Biden said this applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

So all you’ve got to do is just refer to this as “the Biden Rule.”  But it’s a rule and it was started by Democrats.  And now they’re screaming at us for following THEIR rules.

And so let the Democrats hang on their own petard.

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

If you are a Democrat, you are an evil being who belongs to the Party of Evil Beings.  Period.  There is nothing honest about you, or decent about you, or virtuous about you whatsoever.  You are a moral cockroach.

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

And oh, I can go on.  The Democratic Party is the party that turned the name of a Supreme Court nominee into a verb by so utterly pouring out their demonic hate to poison the nomination that the process became known as “Borking.”  It had never been done before the Party of Cockroach Fascism started it.  This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is eat my fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite LIAR.

NO Democrat EVER has the right to question how Republicans treat a Supreme Court nominee or the entire nomination process after the same Democrats who have themselves refused to prevent appointments or allow confirmations of SCOTUS nominees also crawled into the gutter and invented the process of “borking” qualified nominees.

Speaking of “being qualified,” Barack Obama actually openly ACKNOWLEDGED that Judge Roberts was qualified.  But that didn’t MATTER then:

Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law…”

But, no he wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination.”

In short, Obama chose to vote against Roberts because of his perceived conservative politics. Nothing else.

I mean, understand this in terms of what Obama said today as I write this:

To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented,”

Gag me.  Just gag me.  It might have been “unprecedented” if it hadn’t been for YOU, Obama, you miserable roach.

Okay, so I just recorded the FACT that Obama voted AGAINST John Roberts EVEN AFTER HIMSELF ACKOWLEDGING THAT ROBERTS WAS “ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND” QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.  Not only that, but Obama actually joined in a FILIBUSTER ATTEMPT to prevent Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination from ever seeing the light of day.  And the fact that the man is sitting on the SCOTUS this very day is historical proof that Alito was “qualified” to sit on the bench.

So in other words, just treat this guy Merrick Garland the same damn way that our Hypocrite-in-Chief treated Republican-appointed judges to the court when HE was a nothing Senator.  That and just burn in hell, hypocrites.

Republicans have the SAME right and duty to reject any judge Obama nominates simply because they don’t agree with Obama’s “overarching political philosophy.”  Period.  And you people are nothing but cockroach vile hypocrites to say otherwise.

In the same vein, Obama said in the same speech:

“At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” Mr. Obama told an audience

And maybe, just maybe, our politics are so divided right now because the current occupant of the White House degenerated discourse to the point where he actually slandered Republicans by claiming that Republicans were actively trying to seek dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.  Obama actually slandered Republicans by insinuating that they wanted to kill off “grandparents who couldn’t afford to go to nursing homes, poor children with Down syndrome, and autism, and the profoundly disabled.” As the US News & World Report article points out, Obama is literally willing to say ANYTHING when it comes to viciously slandering his opponents.

Obama is our Thug-in-Chief who actually said when HE was a candidate for president, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is now actually hypocrite enough to criticize Donald Trump – who correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall ever having commanded his followers to shoot their opponents with guns – for his “violence.”

But oh, when Obama dishonestly and hypocritically starts blathering patently false words about “courtesy and comity,” we are supposed to saw off the top of our skulls and scoop out our damn brains and believe this lying turd.

Or how about instead I realize that our politics are polarized because Barack Obama is a wicked man who polarized them, and then say, “Right back down your scrawny little weasel neck, you liar!”

I came across something Wednesday night that is just so illustrative of the left: I saw an article from USA Today titled, “Clinton Caught On Hot Mic Unknowingly Shares Good Things.”  And I’m thinking, what sweetness and light did Hillary Clinton share in her hot mic moment?  And I clicked on it obviously assuming that she’d said something nice and positive about somebody.

LIE.  Here’s all the article revealed about Clinton’s hot mic comments as Clinton talked to leftist propagandist Chris Matthews:

“You guys can’t stop covering (Trump),” Clinton said to Matthews. “He is a dangerous presence.”

Matthews seemed to put the onus on the viewer. “Nobody can tell what people want to watch,” he said. “They laugh at him.”

The conversation then shifted to Christie, with Clinton asking why he’s supporting Trump. “Did he have a debt?” she asked.

Seriously.  There were NO “good things” at all.  Unless you’re a hater to the nth power.  Does anyone seriously think for one second that Donald Trump thought that “dangerous presence” remark was a “good thing”?  Do you think Chris Christie thought Clinton’s mockery was?  Do you think ANY of Trump’s supporters think it was a “good thing”?

I’m just saying that the leftist media characterizing Clinton’s obviously polarizing and hostile comments to Donald Trump as a “good thing” reveals something that is just psychopathic in its delusion about the left in general.  Obviously, I say negative things about people; but I have the ability that Democrats very clearly lack to realize that I’m saying negative things rather than “good things.”  For some bizarre reason that again I can only see as a psychotic disconnect from reality, Democrats believe that Obama is this positive spirit when he has said so many hateful things about the Republican Party it is beyond unreal.  And I will challenge any Democrat out there to post all the hateful remarks George W. Bush made about the left and I’ll post all the hateful remarks Barack Obama has made about the right, and we’ll just see right quick who is the “positive spirit” and who is the true hater.  And I can guarantee you, Democrat, you won’t be happy with the result.  Because George W. Bush was for the most part a gracious man, whereas Barack Obama has been far too often a dark, bitter, hateful man who has stirred up rage in this nation as no other president before him.

The Bible teaches that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:4).  I don’t think the devil wears his angel of light costume as mere disguise; rather, this warped, ugly, deluded, hateful being actually thinks of himself that way.  He’s the good guy and God is evil.  Just as Democrats who worship homosexual perversion on an altar of murdered babies think that God is evil for being so intolerant for being opposed to the holocaust of His babies and of fatherhood in general, or to the perversion against nature itself that homosexuality truly is.

And who is the dark, evil, perverted force?  It’s the people who believe that human beings are of incommensurate, literally infinite value, who value LIFE.  It’s the people who honor God and pursue His ways.  And that is just one of the many ways that Democrats are the living embodiment of Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.”

You people literally have NO idea whatsoever what a dark and bitter and divisive force that you are.  You keep pushing and pushing and imposing and imposing; you shove homosexual marriage down our throats when no civilization in the entire history of the human race had ever done such an evil thing; just as you shoved abortion down our throats when likewise all of human history viewed children as a good thing for society and NEVER an evil thing.  And then after shoving these things down our throats – and I can go on, ObamaCare, the massive and foolish $862 billion “stimulus” that was actually a $3.27 trillion waste of money, pretty much ALL of Obama’s executive power-grabs, the dozens of times Obama has been voted down unanimously by the Supreme Court for his illegitimate and immoral power grabs, etc. – you call us “obstructionists” and “intolerant” just for standing in the way of your pursuit of hell.  Because change is good, after all.

Well, Donald Trump sure represents “change,” all right; and all of a sudden it’s a marvelous thing to be obstructionist and intolerant of change.

It is an amazing thing, how this label “obstructionist” has persisted throughout the liberal propaganda media for these years of Obama.  There was a time when Democrats controlled all three branches of elected government, and the Republicans couldn’t do anything.  But due to the Democrats’ unpopular and failed vision, the GOP won first the House and then the Senate.  We dominate in governors and in state governments.  But even now when they have firm control of two out of the three elected branches of government, they are STILL called “obstructionist,” because liberals believe with all their hearts that Obama is a Führer if not a god, and that to deny him anything amounts to unholy blasphemy.

There is frankly no other explanation for this; because when Democrats were the ones in the same exact position, they had a decidedly different view.

This article represents a classic example of this being not uncharacteristic, but ENTIRELY in harmony with the twisted, deluded, pathologically hypocrite roaches Democrats are.

But Democrats are the kind of people who say – and more frighteningly actually believe – “It’s never fascist when we do exactly what we accuse you of being fascist for doing.”

Yes, yes, good things.  Nothing but sweetness and light.  I mean, how can you imagine any “bad things” coming out of this rabid, toxic, vile witch???

Hillary Clinton Vicious

If you are a Democrat, I call you out as a Nazi because you are TEN TIMES as murderous as the Nazis ever were, you baby butchering monsters.  Sixty million babies have been murdered with every single Democrat held to account for that Holocaust of life.  Even just as the Nazi brownshirts, you are utterly rife with homosexual perversion.  And in the same manner, you are about a thousand times the hypocrites that they were.  And so no thank you to your Supreme Court appointment who would make even more of that hell possible.

The Republican majority Senate will do what the hell it wants and the Democrat minority will shut the hell up.  By the Democrats’ own damn rules.  And if Obama and Democrats now say those rules were wrong, then Obama and Democrats should kindly burn in hell for having imposed them in the first place.

If Obama gave a flying damn about the unity of the United States that he has so fractured and broken that on the Republican side we have Donald Trump and on the Democratic side we have socialist Bernie Sanders, he would yield in this election year and allow the incoming president to nominate a Justice with the support of a majority of the people.

But Obama DOESN’T give a flying damn about uniting America.  That was, as I pointed out only months into his dishonest presidency, merely one of his signature lies.

Obama has broken and torn any hope for unity in this nation apart by his wicked rule.  And because of Barack Obama and because of the vote and support of every single Democrat who sided with Obama in the most cynically ideological and divisive wars this nation has ever seen since Democrats started the damn Civil War in 1861, this nation will be at one another’s throats until it burns to the ground.

So LET this nation burn due to your continued pushing toward more and more divisiveness, Obama, but we will NOT be ruled by a tyrant one more minute.  I want nothing whatsoever to DO with a nation whose God is NOT the LORD, and I demand that Republicans stand up in the name of the last decent American citizen left – even if there is only ONE of us left – and stop Obama from appointing another tyrannous judge who will strip away my God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.

It is just another amazing lie from the party of amazing liars that we’re told that Merrick Garland is a “moderate” when his own judicial history betrays him as anything but.  But to be a Democrat means to have no part in the truth.

 

 

The Death Of Truth And the Erection Of False Reality That Will Mark The End-Times Is HERE NOW In Secular Humanist Progressive Liberalism

June 29, 2015

Jesus warned His followers about the nature of the last days:

“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”  He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.  When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” — Luke 21:7-9

Barack Obama told his followers to give everything to him and to trust him and to believe in him (“we” being Barack Obama and the legion of demons inhabiting his soul):

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who’ve been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine. Yes, they can.”

Barack Obama made HIMSELF the living embodiment of the dreams and the hopes of godless mankind.  It was a perverse borrowing of Jesus’ teaching concerning Himself:

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in Me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing.” — John 15:5

Obama’s blatant messianic grandeur was amazing, surpassing even Adolf Hitler’s claims of himself and his magnificence (all delivered in an incredibly cynical pretense of “humility” that is stunning in its self-refutation):

“The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”

Barack Obama’s message was and remains simple: “The God of the Bible is intolerant and hateful.  Put your trust in ME.  Put your faith in MY GOVERNMENT and MY POWER to fundamentally transform the United States of America according to MY ANTICHRIST AGENDA.  Make ME your savior; make ME your deliverer.  Vote AGAINST the God of the Bible and vote for ME.”

If you listen to a Republican’s message – and particularly a conservative Republican’s – you will hear a promise that the candidate will get the government off our backs, will cut taxes, will cut regulations, will allow businesses to grow rather than punishing them, and therefore you will have the opportunity to get a job, improve your life, work toward a better future.  When you listen to a Democrat’s message – and especially Obama’s – you hear someone representing themselves as the living embodiment of a colossal government that will take care of you, provide for you, take other people’s stuff so your Big Brother can dole it out to you.  And that is precisely why the Democrat Party is pathologically fascist and why the Antichrist will come as a liberal, as a socialist, as a man who embodies the promise that human government is the Ultimate Master.

Obama’s message has prevailed in America.  And it prevailed because he is a slanderer and a liar who came with a false message.  As the greatest example of this, Obama falsely came to America “as a Christian” who claimed, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” and “as a Christian” that “it is also a sacred union.”  But he was a liar and a deceiver.  When asked if he would actually seek to be honest and trustworthy in what he said about marriage, Obama refused.  He said he was against a constitutional amendment that would make his view of marriage the law.  On what grounds?  Obama falsely said: “Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down.”  And Obama further mocked faith itself when he said, “I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.”

We now see how warped and false and dishonest and deceitful and depraved EVERYTHING Obama claimed to stand for was.  Because not only did he fundamentally lie about his view of homosexual marriage – and yes, this according to the man who ran his dishonest campaign for him – but he fundamentally lied about what he said about the states having any right to decide or define marriage and about people of any opposing view to actually have any right to any conscience or “different  perspective or different view.”  Because Obama came out and CELEBRATED the Supreme Court’s decision that STATE LAW DOES NOT DEFINE MARRIAGE.  Obama is a liar from hell.  And NO, people should NOT have a right to any different perspective or different view.  YOU WILL BELIEVE AS THE STATE COMPELS YOU TO BELIEVE, PERIOD.

If you are a Democrat today, you believe in lies and you believe in an Antichrist agenda.  Further, you yourself are an antichrist.

Today we see in so many ways the blatant hostility to the truth.  Jesus prophesied the rabid hostility that would always characterize those who took their stand in the Word of God:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.  Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed My teaching, they will obey yours also. — John 15:18-20

But the wicked, unbelieving world that follows the devil and follows Obama certainly doesn’t follow the teachings of Christians any longer, does it?  Rather, what we are seeing today is cynical, depraved LIARS like Barack Hussein Obama, while falsely claiming to be “Christians,” are deceiving the masses and imposing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Christ and His Word taught.  We live in the age of Isaiah 5:20:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

And woe to YOU if you follow these lying perverts of truth.

As for gay marriage, just a few years ago Elena Kagan ruled, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Because she and all her kind stand for nothing but hypocrisy.  It didn’t help her wicked master Obama when he was trying to carry out his grand deception.  For the record, the Constitution has not changed one iota since this depraved and wicked INjustice was stuck on the Supreme Court by the most wicked president in the history of the world’s oldest republic.  There is STILL no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  The only thing that has changed is we are more wicked now and more willing to believe lies as a result of our wickedness.

When I was going to seminary years ago, I actually received a powerful sense that one day I would end up in prison for my belief in the Word of God concerning marriage, concerning homosexuality, concerning what Jesus taught about marriage in Matthew 19, when He declared:

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

– concerning what the Old Testament that Jesus declared He was going to fulfill to the very letter declared was “an abomination” and “a detestable act” (Leviticus 20:13); and concerning what the New Testament repeatedly specifically condemns in 1 Corinthians 6:9, in Jude 1:7, 1 Timothy 1:10, Revelation 21:27 and most especially Romans 1:18-31 which is as crystal clear as it gets that approval of homosexuality is the rock-bottom lowest and most ungodly level any culture can degenerate to.

Today I am in a very senior level of leadership in my church.  There is now little question that it is merely a matter of time before two homosexuals demand to be “married” in my church and I and my church will lose in a perverted, wicked court of “law.”  Habakkuk wailed the same wail that I wail today:

The law has become paralyzed and there is no justice in the courts.  The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted. — Habakkuk 1:4

But God promised that He would bring His WRATH against such a wicked nation that would so defile their commitment to Him and to His ways.  God said He would send the most vicious people on earth to destroy and enslave such a nation; He promised He would send terrible droughts to the places that desperately needed water for crops and torrential flooding to the places that didn’t need water.

Democrats call it “economic inequality” and “climate change” and God calls it His divine judgment because of the wickedness of Democrats.  And every single time the abject godless wickedness of Democrats brings about God’s wrath, twisted, vile, perverted, demonic Democrats cite the very wrath that they brought on America as their reason to pursue even MORE wickedness.  It is who they are.  It is what they do.  And they will not stop until they are screaming in agony in the fire of hell forever and ever.

You look at what’s happening in Greece right now.  And realize that’s coming to America.  And the same secular humanist progressive liberal socialist – in other words, the same Democrat – policies that guaranteed that Greece would catastrophically go bankrupt is similarly ensuring that America will plunge into bankruptcy and chaos.  And the incredible thing is that in Greece, just as in America, liberals/socialists decry and blame NOT THE INSANE SPENDING THAT LED THEM TO BANKRUPTCY BUT THE AUSTERITY THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO INSANE SPENDING as the cause of the crisis.  For liberals, the logic is very simple: I keep insanely spending money and I WILL NOT stop, so you take my credit card away – and so it’s YOUR fault that I can’t keep insanely spending and so it’s therefore YOUR fault for whatever tragedy befalls me.  Because these people are profoundly wicked and dishonest and deceived and they WILL NOT be awakened by reality no matter how massively it comes crashing down upon them.

So the liberal/socialist Greek leaders who are the equivalent of Democrats in America say they’ll meet in July to deal with the crisis when the crisis is going to destroy the nation IN JUNE.  These people are insane; they are morally insane.

As are we.  And anybody who believed anything other than what is happening in Greece would happen when the country voted for liberals/socialists is beyond insane.  There is simply no hope for these people; they are completely blind to reality.  They will not believe the truth no matter what.

We see that right now today in the liberal Democrat bastion that is Puerto Rico. They are as bankrupt as Greece for the same reason that Greece is bankrupt.  And Puerto Rico is “only” $72 billion in debt – versus California being now well over $500 billion in debt but papering over their insane union pension debt as fast as the bills come in.  While the most accurate measure of our debt that shows our TRUE liabilities has us way, WAY over $250 TRILLION in debt if we actually measure reality.

That is the spirit of Obama.  That is the spirit of the Democrat Party today.

I’ve been writing over and over the same message:

NAACP Liar Dolezal Proves ‘Race’ Is A Synonym For ‘Leftist’. How Many Germans Pretended To Be Jews In The Holocaust, Again?

Guilty Even AFTER Being Proven Innocent: Liberals Talk About ‘Justice’ When COCKROACHES Are More Capable Of Justice Or Truth Than They Are

Oft-Documented LIAR Brian Williams Going To Liberal Haven MSNBC Just Proves My Thesis: Liberals Are At HOME With Liars And Their Lies.

Why Being A Democrat Means Being A ‘DEMOnic bureauCRAT’ And A Rabid Despiser Of Truth. And That Means Our National Extinction.

I’ve been pointing out the point that words mean NOTHING and facts mean NOTHING today to Democrats.  They are so pathologically dishonest and so self-deceived that they simply twist the truth and twist reality to whatever their perverted minds want “truth” and “reality” to be.  Such that being “black” doesn’t mean being “black” any more; no, it means being a rabid liberal.  Such that Clarence Thomas does not qualify as a black man because he doesn’t meet the twisted, warped, depraved mockery of truth and reality that Democrats have redefined “black” to mean.  And in the same way, what do words like “male” and “female” mean any more?  Don’t bother to ask a Democrat, because Democrats are warped and perverted beyond belief.  Bruce Jenner is a woman to them but Sarah Palin fails to qualify – because these people are warped and depraved and dishonest and deceived beyond any reach of reality or truth.  What does it mean to be a rapist?  Don’t ask a Democrat, because these people have raped reality and raped truth to the point where it is dead to them.  They are perverts with a perverted view of everything under heaven.

Which is why God in His wisdom knew that hell was the only possible place for them.

So with all of that by way of instruction I give you another article which simply goes to underscore the abject mockery of truth or reality or plain, common sense that the left has utterly abandoned in its foolishness and contempt for God and His ways:

A terrible precedent
By David B. Rivkin Jr., Elizabeth Price Foley
June 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Under Section 1401 of the ACA, tax credits are provided to individuals who purchase qualifying health insurance in an “[e]xchange established by the State under Section 1311.” Section 1311 defines an exchange as a “governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.”

As Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent notes, one “would think the answer would be obvious” that pursuant to this clear language, subsidies are available only through state-established exchanges.

Yet the King majority ignored what the ACA actually says, in favor of what the Obama administration believes it ought to have said, effectively rewriting the language to read “exchange established by the State or federal government.”

Scalia observes that “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” Like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the majority claims that when the court is asked to interpret a word, “it means just what [the court chooses] it to mean — neither more nor less.”

To reach the desired meaning, the King majority declared that “an exchange established by the State” was somehow ambiguous, enabling it to ignore the text and advance instead its vision of the ACA’s overarching purpose. But the precedent upon which the King majority relied for this contextual interpretation, FDA vs. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), involved a fundamentally different situation.

In that case, a group of tobacco manufacturers challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate tobacco products as “medical devices” or “drugs.” The court concluded that the words “device” and “drug” did not directly address tobacco and were consequently ambiguous.

The court looked beyond the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, for contextual clues, discovering that Congress had subsequently passed several statutes allowing the continued sale of tobacco products, while regulating their labeling and advertising. This suggested to the justices that Congress did not intend tobacco to be regulated under the FFDCA as a drug or device.

In King, by contrast, there were no subsequent statutes providing contextual clues about congressional intent. The only reliable evidence was contained in the act’s language itself. This extra-textual approach is deeply problematic for the rule of law, since discerning a statute’s meaning from its context is always a dicey proposition, necessitating judicial inquiry into inchoate matters such as the law’s “purpose.”

Ascertaining a law’s purpose from evidence outside its text is virtually impossible, given that Congress consists of 535 members, each of whom is motivated by different purposes. This is why, at least until King, the court has not resorted to contextual interpretation when the text is plain.

In the words of Palmer vs. Massachusetts (1939), contextual interpretation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be … attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Yet this is exactly what happened in King: Attempted interpretation became legislation itself. By ignoring what the ACA actually says, in favor of what the King majority believes the statute ought to have said or what it thinks Congress meant to say, the court upset the entire constitutional balance.

The King majority acknowledged that the ACA is full of “inartful drafting” and was written “behind closed doors, rather than through the traditional legislative process.” It also conceded that it was passed using unusual parliamentary procedures, and “[a]s a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”

Despite all these flaws, the majority felt compelled to save Congress, and the ACA, from its own foibles. Specifically, the King majority believed that applying the ACA’s plain meaning “would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”

Even if a loss of subsidies would have exacerbated the death spiral, courts are emphatically not in the law-writing business. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants “all” lawmaking power to Congress,” not merely “some.” The job of the judiciary is to implement laws, warts and all.

When judges take it upon themselves to “fix” a law — or to bless an executive “fix” — they diminish political accountability by encouraging Congress to be sloppy. And they bypass the political process established by the Constitution’s separation of powers, arrogating to itself — and the executive — the power to amend legislation.

This leads to bad laws, bad policy outcomes and fosters the cynical belief that “law is politics.”

David B. Rivkin Jr. is a constitutional litigator at BakerHostetler who served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Elizabeth Price Foley is Of Counsel at BakerHostetler and a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.

We are dealing with a group of wicked, deceived people who cannot be dealt with.  Words mean NOTHING to them; reality means NOTHING to them; truth means NOTHING to them.  It is their desire and their very nature to be completely deceived by liars and their lies.

We live in an age of LAWLESSNESS against God’s Laws.  And the Bible described this time:

“Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:3

2 Thessalonians 2:7 describes “the mystery of lawlessness” that will get worse and worse and worse and culminate just as the Antichrist, the beast, comes.

We live in the ultimate final days of REBELLION against God and His Word.  And our day is characterized by a spirit of lawlessness by which even our judges and most especially our president are lawless thugs and tyrants who impose wickedness on the land and literally defy God to bring His wrath upon their people and their nation.

I quote myself in a comment I once wrote:

“The mystery of lawlessness.” I think that’s such a powerful phrase. I now understand it as I watch pure EVIL becoming transcendent in the world and no one is doing anything to stop it or prevent it. To the extent that we have human government, it is either doing NOTHING to stop the rise of evil – such as the cases of Islamic State and other Islamists creating vicious caliphates across increasingly broad land masses, such as the case of Russia gobbling up helpless nations while the world does nothing meaningful to punish them and restore what was seized; such as Iran feverishly working toward nuclear weapons while a US administration actively helps them do so and in so doing facilitates the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Middle East as Sunni Muslim nations read the writing on the wall understanding the sheer moral idiocy of Obama’s so-called “deal” with Iran and begin to work toward their own bomb to try to respond to the Shiite Iranian nuclear threat – or government is itself becoming the SOURCE of evil as secular humanist liberal government murders sixty million innocent babies in America alone by abortion, as government imposes rabid homosexuality on Christians and forces them to bow down before the sodomy of what used to be “Christendom”, as secular humanist liberal government becomes the engine of abandoning Israel and leaving the Apple of God’s eye dependent on the coming Antichrist in direct fulfillment of Daniel 9:27. And if you are a Democrat don’t think for one second that you won’t one day be held accountable by a wrathful God for the government that you voted for and that your support enabled. “The mystery of evil” is that God’s people are watching evil rise and we cannot do anything to prevent it. And we are left shocked and dismayed that the godless and the wicked are so transcendent and so powerful and so unstoppable as we enter the last days before the full wrath of God is revealed against this godless, wicked world in the form of the Tribulation.

We are a nation of laws. We have a constitution. Yet Obama is running so roughshod over both that even Jonathon Turley – the SECOND most cited legal expert in America as well as an ardent liberal – is warning constantly that Barack Obama is a clear and present threat to the very Constitution and to the heart of American law. Turley argues passionately that Obama has become the very danger that the Constitution was written to avoid.

Obama has simply abrogated the law wherever he has wished. On health care, where he abrogated the clear meaning and intent of even his OWN law. On homosexual marriage, where Obama simply declared himself exalted above the Defense of Marriage Act that was approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And now repeatedly on the issue of immigration, where Obama literally imposed measures that failed to win approval in BOTH branches of Congress (the DREAM Act).

Like Obama, the Antichrist will be a profoundly lawless man. There will be laws aplenty. Antichrist will simply ignore them and make up “the law” to benefit himself, his ideology and his politics as he goes along.

And in the Democrat Party we have a massive political organization who cheers that and wants more and more wrath brought upon this land that they so hate because this was once “One nation under God” and they hate God and His Christ more than they love their own lives.

That is why this man is coming and why they will believe him and worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads:

“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. His power will be mighty, but not by his own power, And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree And prosper and perform his will; He will destroy mighty men and the holy people. And through his shrewdness He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; And he will magnify himself in his heart, And he will destroy many while they are at ease….”  — Daniel 8:23-25

Again, I’ve said this before and can simply quote myself because I’ve been consistently saying the same thing over and over again as the world prepares to be deceived by the coming beast:

The coming Antichrist will be a man of cunning words. The NIV in verse 23 describes the Antichrist as “a master of intrigue.” His soul will swim in deceit and deception and he will understand the “dark sentences” of deceiving lies that capture fallen humanity. And he will leverage his lies powerfully to destroy his enemies (i.e., the people of God who believe the Bible that liberals so rabidly despise). Interestingly the prophet Daniel is given wisdom to untangle mysteries such that men can know the truth; Antichrist has the opposite gift, the “shrewdness” (the Hebrew word is also translated WISDOM) to so tie the truth into so many knots that no man will be able to know the truth apart from God’s revealing. And of course since the coming Antichrist is to be ultimately revealed only after the Rapture of Jesus Christ’s Church on earth, there won’t be a lot of “God’s revealing” as Antichrist emerges to seize power. Which is to say the chronology appears to be this: 1) the Rapture in which every single human being on earth with the Holy Spirit who CAN know the truth is removed; 2) the Antichrist is revealed and seizes power with his lies to a godless, stupid world. (There WILL be believers during the Tribulation, but they will BECOME believers and of course there will be FAR too few to oppose Antichrist at the early point when he takes over the world).

And that sounds familiar, doesn’t it??? Because OBAMA is a man of deceit and lies and arrogant boasting like no man I have ever seen.

We are beginning to see now what this coming liar will look like and how he will make dishonesty and lies such an effective part of his political strategy. Because it’s easy to document that that is how Obama has seized so much power. Obama has CONSTANTLY lied to gain political advantage. As another example there is the Barack Obama who ran as the non-partisan candidate for president versus the most rabidly partisan president in all of American history. He lied. He simply lied about what the New York Times said was “the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.” I submit that you can readily recognize as demon-possessed any one who is morally insane enough to believe that Obama fulfilled that promise. And as yet another example, when he imposed the DREAM Act that failed to pass in the Senate and never passed in the House in open defiance of the Constitution, Obama declared that the DREAM Act “would be the right thing to do for our security.” Just an outright lie. But it worked. And now he’s lying again as hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant children flood into America to take advantage of Obama’s lawlessness by blaming the fiasco on everything and everyone but himself.

Antichrist will be a man of deceit and lies and arrogant boasting. That’s what Daniel 8:25 (and other passages) teach. He will be a constant twister of words. And there will be no Fox News to try to remind you of what the man really said before he said whatever he decided to say next.

I’ve documented the malignant narcissist and incredibly arrogant man that Barack Obama is. But even the extremely liberal New York Times has acknowledged the stunning personal arrogance that is Barack Obama.

Antichrist will be so incredibly arrogant that he will actually believe he is God. Which may make him more humble than Barack Obama, who seems to believe he’s ABOVE God.

If you want to learn about the beast, about what kind of man he will be and how he will act, just watch Obama. And learn the essence of political evil from him.

We’re seeing in Barack Hussein Obama the death in America. But we’re also seeing the prime textbook example of how the coming Antichrist will deceive, slander and manipulate his way to total power.

One other thing: I used to believe that the Antichrist would be an incredibly capable leader; I now realize that is not true: Antichrist won’t be a great leader, but a great deceiver. Like Obama, Antichrist will be a LOUSY leader and his policies will fall apart and fail one after the other. But as a skilled liar and slanderer he will always redirect blame to some other party and the world will keep believing his lies and thinking if they just give Antichrist more power he’ll be able to overcome the resistance of the bad people (e.g. the Christians who come to faith after the Rapture during the Tribulation). So Antichrist will be able to seize more and more power and then be more and more and more incompetent with that power as he drives the world into collapse and finally into Armageddon

I know whom I have believed, and take my stand with Him and with His Word against all the forces and unholy power of a dark and wicked government that will only culminate in the ultimate spirit of godlessness otherwise known as the greatest act of government-imposed socialism otherwise known as the mark of the beast.

Right now, and until the nation collapses and the beast comes, every vestige of liberal Democrat power is a giant, vast reciprocating engine whose ever downward stroke makes America more and more wicked and more worthy of divine judgment and wrath.

I end with the words of The Word:

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. — 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

.

 

 

 

Frothing Liberals AGAIN Document They Are FASCISTS With Their Rabid Response To The Hobby Lobby Case

July 1, 2014

It’s always an amazing thing to watch liberals being hypocrites.  Liberalism is ABJECT personal moral hypocrisy; liberals are people who say what is always fascist for thee to do is never fascist for me to do.

Under the warped doctrine of “separation of church and state,” liberals have attacked and successfully purged most vestiges of God and Judeo-Christianity from society.  No Judeo-Christian practice or doctrine or belief can have anything whatsoever to do with culture.  But then you take liberal’s Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat, and suddenly on their view the church IS the state and the state IS the church.  So you can’t have a cross representing veterans who gave their lives on public land, but you can sure force the owners of businesses to violate their most deeply held moral beliefs by exploiting the raw, naked force of government.

Liberals are either pathologically stupid people or pathologically evil people – or both, as I believe.  You can surely see this again in the shrill, unhinged rhetoric flying around from the left in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

If I had a nickel for every liberal who came out and claimed that somehow the Supreme Court just took away birth control from women, I would be a very rich man.  When the truth of the matter is that birth control is as available today as it was before yesterday.  The only thing that has been taken away is the “right” of liberals to impose THEIR religious beliefs onto the owners of businesses who have different religious beliefs when it comes to abortion.

To wit, Hobby Lobby – long before this court decision – had been providing SIXTEEN different forms of birth control to female employees as part of their generous health care coverage.  The only forms of “birth control” they didn’t want to pay for were abortifacients which do NOT prevent a conception but kill a baby.  And the members of the Church of the Ungodly Nazi Bureaucrat screamed, “Nein!  Nein! Nein!  You WILL cover our religious right to murder babies!!!  Our god (human government) has the divine power to FORCE you to kill babies for us!!!”

You need to understand why liberals get into such an unhinged frenzy.  For them, human government is God and God is human government.  They have no other gods before human government.  And so when they are confronted with a ruling like this one, well, their god let them down and abandoned them.  And they therefore simply have to race around cursing like rabid vermin.

There are so many ways that liberals are abject hypocrites jus on this case that it is beyond unreal.  Let’s look at a few:

First, there’s the fact that to be a liberal is to be not only a fascist but a Nazi.  Take a look at the vicious threats against Hobby Lobby from the left.  I apologize for the language in advance, but you have to consider the unhinged, rabid, VIOLENT, viscious, rabid hate that characterizes liberalism when one of the things that these fascists try to impose on everybody else gets taken away from them:

‘Fu*k you:’ Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win
Posted at 10:42 am on June 30, 2014 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

Let it all out. Exhale.

Stay classy. And peaceful:

For the record, my copy and paste didn’t grab all of the hate.  But you ought to get the idea.

The first one above gives you the noxious, rotten flavor that is liberalism: “F- you, you narrow-minded, anti-women pieces of feces!!!!!!”  Because this person is CLEARLY “tolerant” and open to disagreeing points of view, isn’t she?  And as for the “anti-women” thing, I looked at the images of the gathering outside the Supreme Court taken by the reliably leftist Los Angeles Times and there were far more women cheering the decision than men.  And so what Sandra McMahan is really saying is that “feminists” are so rabid and so toxic that they – like Hitler – are willing to STRIP AWAY the femaleness of pro-life women the way that the Führer rhetorically stripped away the humanity of Jews.  You simply have to think exactly like these people.  Period.

Liberals have pissed away the image of God in what used to be their “human natures.”  They fully qualify for the words of Proverbs 12:1

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

The word “brutish” – most often translated as “stupid” – refers to stupid, brutish animals who lack the capacity that humans have for moral reasoning and receiving wisdom.  It’s what Romans chapter one teaches, “God gave them over” to their stupid, brutish natures.

That is why liberals are so often so pathologically stupid and dishonest, such as the liberals exemplify when they claim that “Scalia law is like shariah law.”  These people are literally that stupid and that evil, that there is no difference to them between asking a woman to pay for her own abortion-inducing drugs and stoning a woman to death.  They are stupid, brutish animals who can’t distinguish the difference.

So, yeah, to be a liberal is to be a violent, vicious, fascist thug.  When John Roberts basically betrayed conservatives and re-wrote the damn ObamaCare law to make what was explicitly ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL fly, did conservatives threaten to burn down the world?  Nope.  When the Supreme Court voted for the wrath of God as per Romans chapter one and ruled to abandon DOMA, did conservatives threaten to burn down gay bars?  Nope.  Because we’re not fascists like liberals are.

Here’s another example of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.  Meet Harry Reid, hypocrite:

“It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”

I mean, Harry Reid is FINE with five men deciding what happens to women.  As long as the five men think exactly like HE does.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of Harry Reid’s top staffers are MEN.  Which is a characteristic ENDEMIC to the left.  But what can I say?  When you’re a Nazi, you demand that Jews be treated one way and that you as a Nazi be treated a different way.  So the same rules you want to apply to “the other” should NEVER apply to you.

Liberals hate truth.  Jesus said, “Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to Me.”  And they held their ears and began screaming f-words and shouting to burn Jesus down, to crucify Him.  Jesus told us that liberals would hate us and He pointed out, “They hated Me first.”  And that’s why they hate Jesus for describing marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  It’s why they despise the Word of God when it teaches that God forms the unborn child in the womb.  When the Virgin Mary was pregnant with the baby Jesus, they howl in rage that she didn’t abort Him and murder Him in the womb.  And when the unborn John the Baptist kicked in the womb when he neared the unborn Jesus in Mary’s womb, they wish that instead of the unborn John kicking in excitement both woman had instead headed to the nearest “clinic” to get rid of the parasites invading their bodies.

Liberals HATE the truth with a passion.  The “truth” is a rhetorical game for them to exploit with propaganda, the way they have exploited their bogus “war on women.”

 

 

If You Want To Know Who’s To Blame Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision, Blame OBAMA And Blame The Left. Here’s Why.

April 4, 2014

The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution.  I think both sides amply attest to that.

Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”?  It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean.  And nothing more.  That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.

If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose.  I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).

I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare.  And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.

I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”  These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution.  It is completely besides the point to them.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter.  They do what the hell they want.

And they want hell.  Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever.  And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can.  It’s their gift to Satan.

I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.”  That is simply asinine.

As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes).  Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough?  As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):

Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party.  As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler.  – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87

So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him?  According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”

And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.”  He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.”  Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too.  So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.”  Just like Führer Obama.

I’ve got to note that Ernst Rohm was as flaming of a homosexual as you can GET.  And there was NO ONE who was MORE RESPONSIBLE for the rise of Hitler than Rohm.  Rohm brought Hitler into the Nazi Party to begin with; Rohm protected Hitler as he rose to power with his powerful paramilitary group the SA Brownshirts that grew to some three million.  And rampant homosexuality was the norm within the SA.

Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood.  I guess that must make the guy “normal.”

Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG.  And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.

So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition.  Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).

Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”

Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?

For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 – so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history.  A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Hmmm.  1976.  How many decades ago was that?  Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep.  It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.

And:

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds.  Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise?  Try NOT.  He lied.  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie.  He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).

And:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

I pointed out in that 2008 article:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.

Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.”  Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?

The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O.  Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.

No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O.  There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.

Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

I link to and cite an article that documents that Obama had held more fundraisers as president than the previous FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And this one:

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

And then a little later this one:

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???

Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.

Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history.  Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008.  He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived.  You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.

Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds.  I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.

Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth.  Because they are fascist hypocrites.

Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun.  He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king.  He has perverted health care.  He has perverted immigration.  He has perverted foreign policy.  And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.

You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats.  You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.

But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”

As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.

And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.

Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it?  People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.

And so I pointed out:

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

Let me expand on that slightly.  I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes.  Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things.  So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything.  Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes.  If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund???  Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do???  This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do.  And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do  – such as worship God???

I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist.  Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this.  Do you know what that was?  It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict.  Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television.  You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land.  Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.  And then what did Obama do?  Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered.  He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.

If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate.  And impeach your fascist monster.  And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.

Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists.  And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”

 

 

The Socialist ObamaCare Takeover Of Health Care Is An Unmitigated Disaster. Just Ask Doctors.

June 28, 2012

I write this the night before the Supreme Court releases its decision on ObamaCare, obviously not knowing how the SCOTUS will rule.

Will the SCOTUS overturn the entire law?  I think so, in the sense that the Democrats who rammed the disgraceful takeover of our health care system could have placed a severability clause in it, but didn’t.  One of the Justices (Scalia, in my memory) famously asked just how on earth they could be expected to divide this 2,700 page monstrosity up if they were to decide to overturn part of it and keep part of it.

On the other hand, The Supreme Court seems to have a penchant for deciding as little as possible and ruling as narrowly as possible – which guarantees that the same issues will come before them again and again and again.  If you are a fan of the SCOTUS, you might argue that this is because they don’t want to involve the Court in important issues which ought to be decided by the elected branches.  But if that’s true, why bother to even take up these cases with decisions that decide almost nothing?  On the other hand, if you are a SCOTUS skeptic, you might well conclude that the Supreme Court never issues bold decisions so it can have job security.

The court issues so many narrow decisions that merely force them to issue subsequent narrow decisions on basically the same damn cases ad nauseam.

An example of this was the Arizona SB 1070 Law.  By keeping the major provision and overturning the other three, you ended up with a joke of a system in which the states get to demand immigration papers and the suspects get to refuse to show them their immigration papers.  Antonin Scalia’s frustration over the near-useless ruling which guarantees that immigration will remain a mess would have been funny if the situation wasn’t such a travesty.  His harshest remark may have been:

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

So, while I am believing the Court will issue a bold decision and overturn ObamaCare simply because it will create a genuine disaster if it overturns the mandate (the funding mechanism) but leaves the rest of the law that forces trillions in spending intact – or even worse, leaving the mandate intact and choosing some other details to quibble over – I recognize that such a decision is how the SCOTUS normally does business.

A new survey that just came out that demonstrates just what a turd this ObamaCare law is worth broadcasting from every rooftop.  If ObamaCare gets thrown out as unconstitutional, then we need to keep doing everything we can to expose just how breathtakingly evil this demonic law truly was in the face of the Democrat Party’s “The Supreme Court is only a valid entity if it rules the way we fascist liberals say it should” mantra (see more of that here from elected Democrats).  And what the heck.  Here’s still more.  And we need to expose it even MORE if any part of this beast is allowed to limp out of the Supreme Court (and if the SCOTUS doesn’t overturn it, figure on the same people who demonized the Court saying, “The highest court in the land has now spoken …”).

So take a look at the following two surveys:

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit
Kate Hicks
Web Editor, Townhall.com 06/14/12

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors’ Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obamacare is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry’s woes:

KEY FINDINGS
 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.
 
If this isn’t an airtight argument for the repeal of Obamacare, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare this month.

The other survey gives us more information on just how rancid physicians think ObamaCare is.

Some screenshots I took from the survey:

And:

So other than the fact that doctors will have less control over medical decisions while government bureaucrats will have far MORE control, and other than the fact that it’s going to escalate the process of driving doctors out of medicine when we ALREADY HAVE A DOCTOR SHORTAGE, ObamaCare is hunky dory.

Well, maybe not so hunky dory.  There’s a lot more crap wrong with this ObamaCare turd:

For Physicians, Obamacare a Net Negative
Posted on 15 June 2012 by jmorris
By Jeremy Morris, Associate Editor, US Daily Review.

Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare and leader in permanent and locum tenens physician staffing for over 30 years, endorsed the results of a new survey by its parent company that finds that a “D” is the mean grade physicians give the health law, despite its primary intention to reduce the cost of healthcare and provide coverage for the uninsured. Physicians who said they were very knowledgeable about the law were even more negative.

The survey was conducted online from May 25 to June 4, 2012. Invitations for the survey were emailed to physicians who had been placed by Jackson Healthcare staffing companies and those who had not. Respondents were self-selected, with 2,694 physicians completing the survey. (The error range for this survey at the 95-percent confidence level is +/- 1.9 percent.)

In addition, the survey shows 68 percent of American physicians disagree that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” will have a positive impact on physician/patient relationship.

Only 12 percent of physicians said the law provides needed healthcare reform. A majority of physicians said the ACA would not improve healthcare’s quality, rising costs or patients’ control over their own health care. They also said it would worsen the amount of control physicians have over their practice decisions.

The only positive rating physicians gave the ACA was related to access. Fifty-four percent of respondents said the new law will increase patients’ access to care. The health law is estimated to drive 13 million new Medicaid enrollees beginning in 2014.

“Physician opinions are important since they are a primary driver of healthcare decisions and costs,” said Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, a national healthcare staffing company. “Overall, they believe the law does not meet its intended objectives, negatively impacts the patient-physician relationship and hinders their ability to control the treatment of their patients.”

One important provision in the law set to take effect next year is the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with finding savings in Medicare. Sixty-four percent of physicians said it would have a negative impact on patient care.

Among other key survey findings:

  • 70 percent said ACA would not stem rising healthcare costs.
  • 66 percent said ACA would give physicians less control over their practice decisions.
  • 61 percent said ACA would not improve the quality of healthcare.
  • 55 percent said Congress should scrap ACA and start over.
  • 49 percent said ACA would give patients less control over their healthcare.
  • 35 percent said it did nothing to reform healthcare.
  • 31 percent said ACA didn’t go far enough and a single-payer system is needed.
  • 22 percent said ACA went too far and impedes a physician’s ability to practice medicine.

“Improving the quality of patient care and managing rising healthcare costs are undoubtedly the two biggest issues facing physician practices today, and this survey certainly indicates the new health law is doing little to address these key challenges,” said Tony Stajduhar, president of the Permanent Recruitment Division, Jackson & Coker. “With a shortage of physicians already projected in the coming years, especially among permanent physicians, we need to actively engage this key group in discussions regarding healthcare reform that will bring about impactful changes in our current healthcare system―in turn, positively influencing recruitment and retention within this profession.”

To view the survey or learn more click here.

According to a statement, “Jackson & Coker believes that all hospitals, clinics, physician practices, and patients should have access to a physician whether for a day, a lifetime, or any of life’s changes in between. For over three decades, Jackson & Coker has been uniting physicians and hospitals to ensure that all patients’ needs are met by providing physicians for as little as a day and as long as a lifetime. The firm specializes in doctor opportunities for physicians at any stage of their professional career. Headquartered in metro Atlanta, the physician recruitment firm has earned a reputation for placing exceptionally qualified candidates in commercial and government practice opportunities. Recruiters work in two divisions of the company: Permanent Placement, which places providers in over 40 medical specialties in permanent placement jobs, and locum tenens, a staffing model that recruits medical providers (physicians and CRNAs) for temporary vacancies. Jackson & Coker’s in-house client credentialing specialists perform comprehensive credentialing services that adhere to the highest industry standards, with a dedicated individual for each specialty team.”

The “Obama Akbar!” liberals who most support ObamaCare frankly don’t care if it is evil and will kill people by medical neglect.  In fact, the worse it is, and the more people die because of ObamaCare, the better – because that would lead to the next step in liberal’s most cherished dreams of a state-controlled society.  Because the sad, pathetic, tragic fact of the matter is that the bigger and more intrusive government becomes and the more wildly said government fails, the more essential still bigger and still more intrusive government becomes.  If a small, limited government that conservatives yearn for has a crisis, most people aren’t gravely impacted.  If you have the sort of giant government bureaucracy that liberals dream of and it has a crisis, people will suffer by the hundreds of millions.  If we had a catastrophic collapse of the government – and believe me, one is coming SOON – you can rest assured that millions of frightened, hungry people would demand the government step in and help them – which is precisely what liberals want.  The system crashes, liberals seize power, and they never look back.  And it won’t even MATTER that they were the ones who created the collapse in the first place.  We’ve already seen this story before.

Update, 6/28/12: Well I was wrong – and very right.  SCOTUS issued one of its quibbling decisions in which it played around with the regime’s draconian Medicaid threats against the states while asserting that the mandate was a tax even though Obama and the Democrat Party swore up one side and down the other that it was NOT a tax.  But overall, as long as you play bait-and-switch and arbitrarily declare what Obama and Congress said was not a tax to be a tax, it’s “constitutional.”  All the Supreme Court had to do to not be “activist” in Democrat demagoguery was to rewrite the clear intent of the law to use the Commerce Clause rather than Congress’ taxing powers.  Which of course is pretty damned activist, isn’t it?

It is also the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

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

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “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.

But Obama lied to you.  It IS a tax increase.  It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact.  And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying.  Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity.  And you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed.  And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed.  And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO.  But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent.  And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

Let me put this into the context of the Star Wars fight of good versus totalitarian big government-gone insane evil: “Help me, Mitty Won Romnobi.  You’re my only hope.”

Please use your presidential lightsaber to slice this Death Panel to pieces before it’s too late.

Obama Continues To Demonize: This Time The U.S. Supreme Court

January 28, 2010

Since I wrote this (but before I posted it) we have a Supreme Court Justice responding to Obama’s continued demagoguery of SCOTUS.

Obama was saying:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.”  In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue.  You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you.  He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”?  You become the enemy of the religion.  And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”?  Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy.  Damn free speech!  Damn First Amendment!  Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

Let’s agree with Barry Hussein’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s take on it instead (see the embedded video):

“When you think about the First Amendment…you think it’s highly overrated.”

That joke dismissing the First Amendment was about as funny as Josef Stalin’s kneeslapper:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

Here’s an important question: Just why is our demagogic president and his lackeys so unhinged over this decision?

It comes back to the idea of his racist, Marxist, anti-American reverend’s words about “chickens coming home to roost“:

From the previously cited New York Times article:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser.  When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.  Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations.  One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked.  Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

Why is it “striking at our democracy itself” to finally allow corporations to have a voice against a president who has given one sweetheart deal after another to labor unions, while working toward giving labor unions the right to force unions on businesses without a legitimate private vote via card check?

Here’s another example: one of the top bankruptcy attorneys in the country has stated that the Obama White House threatened to destroy his firm using the mainstream media if it continued to oppose Obama’s “Take my offer or else” offer for Chrysler investors.

Here’s another one: Humana was attacked, demonized, and handed an illegal gag order for trying to correct the record as the White House levied lies against it.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond.  They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition.  By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

This is an important fact:

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.”  They don’t like businesses.  And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.”  Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count.  And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.

Supreme Court Justice Mouths ‘That’s Not True’ To Lying Obama Speech

January 27, 2010

Remember Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You LIE!” retort during Obama’s last speech in the Capitol Building?  Wilson’s statement was about the only honest thing said throughout the speech.  And Joe Wilson’s honest rebuke of Obama’s lies netted him at least $2.7 million in contributions.

Well, now we have our new “Joe Wilson” – coming straight from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed response of “That’s not true” to Obama’s demagoguery:

Politico sets up the moment:

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

Basically, if the Supreme Court says it’s legal to murder 50 million babies, the Democrats claim that the voice of God has spoken – and that ruling cannot be questioned.  But if that very same court says that corporations have a right to exercise free speech, then THAT’S an abortion of justice.

Obama’s denunciation of the Supreme Court in a venue in which they could not defend themselves – and with a line that was intended to generate a Democrat standing ovation all around them – was a despicable disrespect of our separate branches of government as well as being rude.  The Justices showed up for Obama’s speech out of courtesy for the executive and legislative branches; they did not show up to be attacked.

Just as Joe Wilson was CORRECT in his contention that Barack Obama had lied, Justice Alito was correct in pointing out that Obama had not told the truth.  A central claim in Obama’s slanderous attack against the Supreme Court decision was that foreign corporations would be able to influence the political process.  But that isn’t true:

Another area of interest is the possible effect of this decision on foreign political spending in U.S. elections. It is important to note (as much public comment on this decision does not) that under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited under section 441e of the statute, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in Citizens United. Thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign. Further, the U.S. subsidiaries of international companies are already subject to FEC restrictions on spending non-U.S. funds in U.S. elections, or allowing foreign nationals a role in the decision-making process. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

An article in Big Journalism sets up the legitimate major issues (as opposed to Obama’s illegitimate demagoguery) surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling:

Lost in most of the coverage of the decision (and conveniently ignored by President Obama, former “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School), is that, as Justice Kennedy points out, the ban on electioneering speech never applied to one type of corporation. And what type of corporation would be exempt from laws and regulations that chill the speech of all its corporate brethren? Why, the media corporation, as Justice Kennedy points out on page 35 of the opinion:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

The author of the above article contends that big media will be hurt by this ruling, since presently they are the only corporations that get free speech, and therefore are the only corporations that get to speak for all the other corporations through the filter of their liberal biases.

It’s also more than a little hypocritical for Obama to wax so self-righteous now when he had so little problem accepting all kinds of campaign contributions that in all likelihood included foreign money without every bothering to check.

And, of course, the very big-media corporations who were alone allowed to exercise their free speech never bothered to look at the Obama foreign money issue.

You want to hear the REAL reason Obama is so angry at this decision?  Because he is finally bothered by the notion that one’s chickens can come “home to roost.”

From the New York Times:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Obama has repeatedly demonized entire industries (banks, auto manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, etc.).  And now a whopping 77% of investors believe that Obama is anti-business.

So it will be something of a textbook case of poetic justice that the businesses that Obama viciously attacked finally get their own shot at being able to attack him for a change.

Radical Sotomayor Now Overruled 6 Out Of 7 Times By SCOTUS

June 29, 2009

One out of seven is even terrible in baseball; it is an absolutely horrifying statistic for a judge who is being seriously considered for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor has had her cases overruled six out of seven of the times that they have come before the Supreme Court. That is how radical, and how incompetent as a judge, she truly is.

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) —decision pending as of 5/26/2009 [update as of 6/29/09: reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)].

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning.  She has been overruled – meaning her legal judgment was contradicted – six out of seven times.  And the ONLY time her decision was upheld (Knight vs. Commissioner), her reasoning for the decision was faulted by every single judge on the panel.

That’s bad.  That is really, really bad.

In the Ricci v. DeStefano (i.e. the “New Haven firefighter case) Sotomayor in a single paragraph tossed out the case of a dyslexic firefighter who had spent $1000 on teaching aids and simply outworked his competition.  Being dyslexic doesn’t count; only being black should count as a disabling “handicap” for these black robed liberal bigots.

This “judge” who makes racism a basis for her rulings has made repeated statements to indicate that she will make racial bias a fundamental element of her judicial philosophy.  Consider again her comment: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  She is unfit to be a judge on ANY court; let alone the Supreme Court of the United States.

The last thing this country needs is another radical in robes, who will ignore the US Constitution and impose her own biased and defective judgment upon people and institutions demanding justice.