About Me

My photo
United States
I despise the left wing liberal attempts to change America. I support FREEDOM, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, religious freedom and protecting the rights of Americans, including the unborn. Close the border, round up illegals and send them home. Welcome them back with a green card. I believe in preserving the visions of our founding fathers which did not include Socialism or Sharia Law. This IS STILL America.....at least for now.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Merry Christmas! That's Right, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I am completely alarmed at the way Christmas has been attacked in recent years. Many want to make it a secular holiday, which it is not. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. It is a CHRISTIAN holiday. A holiday for CHRISTIANS. How much clearer can I make it?

The same is true for Hanukkah. It is a JEWISH holiday.

In Armonk, NY the traditional Christmas and Hanukkah displays will now include the Islamic star and crescent. Their displays also include a Menorah and a Christmas tree. Now this might just seem "inclusive" at first glance...but look closer.

The Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent are religious symbols. The Christmas tree is not. What needs to be there to truly represent the real meaning of Christmas is a nativity. Guess what? There isn't one.

Armonk town resident Asad Jilani, saying the Christmas season is an appropriate time to celebrate all cultures, asked the board to include Islamic symbols to their display.

Let me say this again. Christmas is not about celebrating ALL cultures. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. It is a Christian holiday....not an all inclusive or secular holiday.

Why must Christians be the ones to make one of their top two CHRISTIAN celebrations all inclusive (actually both, but I will cover Easter later). Why must Christians change Christmas to accommodate all? Do you think for one minute that Muslims would allow a nativity at all Ramadan celebrations? Do you think they would allow their religious holiday to become all inclusive? If you are saying yes, you better think again.

Why do people think they can change Christmas and all that it represents. Christians do not interfere with holidays of other faiths. Not that I have ever heard of, anyway.

I suspect these attacks will increase. After all, we have a president who does not buy Christmas gifts for his children in order to teach them limits. He does, however, allow "SANTA" to bring "seasonal gifts". Yes, "seasonal gifts" at Christmas. Not surprising for a man who canceled The National Day of Prayer, but hosted a Ramadan dinner at The White House.

Obama even wanted to make Christmas all inclusive at the White House,

“The President spoke movingly about the scene the crèche depicts in his remarks at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree last week: Tonight, we celebrate a story that is as beautiful as it is simple. The story of a child born far from home to parents guided only by faith, but who would ultimately spread a message that has endured for more than 2,000 years – that no matter who we are or where we are from, we are each called to love one another as brother and sister. While this story may be a Christian one, its lesson is universal. It speaks to the hope we share as a people. And it represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country – a tradition that has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens.”

Christmas is not about brotherhood, or sisterhood cultural diversity...or anything else...but the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Obviously, someone forgot to tell the Obama's.

One thing Obama did get right...the message of Christ is universal. It is never changing. If you accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, you can have eternal life.

I have news for the Obama's. Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday whether you like it or not. It is not all inclusive or secular. You do not have to celebrate it as a family. That is your choice, and in America we are free to make those decisions for ourselves. That being said, The White House is not YOURS. It belongs to the people. I would advise you never to forget that.

Obama wanted “non-religious Christmas

Islamic star and crescent join town's Christmas tree

School Christmas carol ban upheld

Monday, December 7, 2009

President Obama’s Annual Performance Evaluation

President Obama’s Annual Performance Evaluation

By Dennis Jones Sunday, December 6, 2009
In the business world most executives get an annual performance evaluation that reviews the past year’s accomplishments or shortcomings and compares them to previously agreed upon goals and accountabilities. As 2009 draws to a close, the following is a recap and review that President Obama might receive for his performance over the past year starting with his previous experience:

Prior Relevant Experience

3 years in the US Senate (two spent running for President) - no major legislation authored, only credit taken for legislation introduced by others.

7 years in the Illinois state senate, a part-time calling that allowed him to serve as a part-time law professor.

Three years as a “community organizer”.

Read More......

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth

Now let me get this straight, reporting employees who received a pay raise as a new job created, reporting jobs in congressional districts that do not exist, reporting new jobs for companies that exceed the total number of employees.....are side errors?

Define "side error"! Is that the same thing as a LIE?

Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

New Recommendations on Mammograms?

I have thought about these new recommendations almost non-stop since they were issued. Then, I decided to take a look at just WHO was making them. Oddly enough, it is a government agency that is appointed by the Obama Administration. Another oddity, the American Cancer Society does not agree with the recommendations.

Why, then would a government agency feel the need to overstep the American Cancer Society and the vast majority of physicians who screen and treat women for breast cancer?

I can tell you in one word:


Do you think that Michelle Obama will wait until 50 to get her first mammogram? I think not. Do you think that Oprah would have waited until 50? Doubt it.

Now it is bad enough that they are saying to wait ten additional years before having a mammogram, but to urge women not to do self exams? Who the hell are these people? What right do they have to advise women not to perform self-breast exams?

It is very plain to see that this is a step in the direction of rationing before Obamacare even passes. Do they really think the American people are so stupid that they will not figure this out? The guidelines will be used if Obamacare passes, to refuse payment (and cut costs) for routine screening for an additional ten years in women. Even worse, now you can expect that private insurance companies will implement these guidelines to cut costs immediately, if not sooner.

It is said repeatedly that Obamacare will not come between the decisions made by you and your doctor. Well of course not, honey,.....just be prepared to pay for those decisions because your insurance is not going to cover it.

The panel who made these recommendations were not even cancer specialists, nor did they ever have real any day to day experience with this disease.

Who then will be affected by the new recommendations under Obamacare? It will be the lower economic class and this will include a large number of black women. The very people who voted for Obama to begin with. Most of these women will be unable to pay for mammograms out of their pockets...unlike the upper economic class.

Where is the OUTRAGE?

I had a very dear friend who diagnosed with a very aggressive form of breast cancer at age 36. She died a couple of years later. I can think of several people that I know of that were diagnosed well before the age of 50.


How is that hope and change working for ya now?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Let Me Be Clear.....

In 2008 the uninsured were needy, desperate, dying...and ignored by society. In 2010they will be criminals.

Anyone making over 150% of the poverty level will be required to buy health insurance. The fine for not doing so will be $100.00 per day. Should you fail to pay your fines, it becomes a misdemeanor with a fine of $25k and/or a year in jail. If you fail to pay THAT...it becomes a felony with a fine of $250k AND five years in jail.

The last time I checked....150% of the poverty level was still poverty.

Is this the hope and change you wished for?

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu;

First....I am going to do something I never thought I would do. I want to apologize for my country. It has been done recently (world wide) by President Obama, although unjustified. I feel that my apology is not only justified, but necessary.

It seems that many thought President Obama was the "Obamessiah". What he has been is a train wreck for our country and the world. Please know that the vast majority of Americans support Israel even without the "permission" of our government.

It is very clear that Obama is no friend to Israel. Obama is no friend to The United States of America. For the first time in my life...I am ashamed of my country.
I hope and pray when the time comes, you will remember the American people and do what you can to help us. I believe we are going to need it.

Stand your ground, protect your country and its citizens. You not only have every right to do that, you have an obligation.

God bless Israel and God bless America!

Monday, November 2, 2009

Cash for Clunkers

If the Cash for Clunkers program cost the American Tax Payers 24k per car sold, Obama should have just bought the damn cars for them and sent them a 1099 for the entire 24k! There were 690k cars sold.....and they are going to get a 1099 for 4k.

I wonder how many of these people bought electric cars? You know, electricity that we are going to be paying almost DOUBLE for? Suckers......

I want my 24k! Spread the wealth, Buddy!

690,000 x 24,000 = $16,560,000,000.00

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Barack Obama, YOU LIE!

I think this video speaks clearly for itself.

Obama, Manuel Zelaya and Freedom

I find it totally alarming that Obama supports the ousted President of Honduras. The people in that country acted according to THEIR constitution when Zelaya tried to remove term limits so that he could run again. Their constitution said that he was not even allowed to try to remove term limits...so they ousted him according to their own law. They were, as I see it, well within their rights?

Zelaya is supported by the warm and fuzzy Hugo Chavez. Which is a clear sign that a dictatorship was in the Hondurans future. Obama suspended over 30 million in aid to that country and has all but reinstated Zelaya to power. Who the hell does Barack Obama think he is?

WHY would Obama support his return to the Presidency when he was legally ousted according to the laws of that country? Has he no respect for their constitution, their people or their freedom? Of course not! He certainly has none for our own country. It is clear as can be. Obama is not a supporter of free people. WE have just yet to see it here in our country....well most of us anyway.

The thing that bothers me....is that he is our President now and people are not seeing the red flags here. What will it take to wake up the American people.

Who's behind the Obama Honduras policy?

I beg you, Honduras' interim President Roberto Micheletti, DO NOT AGREE TO IT. You have the support of the American people.....you do not need the support of Obama and Chavez. Freedom will outlive this presidential administration, come hell or high water.

Ousted Honduran says pact restores him to power

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Obama, Our Troops in Afghanistan NEED HELP!

Whether you are liberal or conservative..this should anger you. After serving 70 days with the only communication with the Commander in Chief ONE TIME, General McChrystal's request for more troops went public.....ummm.....errr......TWO MONTHS ago. As of this moment, he has received no answer to his request.

Of all the troop deaths in Afghanistan since the war started...ONE THIRD have occured during your short time as Commander in Chief.

Obama,these are our husbands, wives, sons and daughters dying while you do not a damn thing. I personally think it has to do with the elections coming in a few days. You care more about your damned domestic agenda than our troops dying. Hey....do you get a Nobel Peace Prize for that?

Obama, as my Grandmother used to put it so eloquently....SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT! Either send the troops they need or bring them all home.

I got news for you, I am damned angry and I am not alone. This is such an outrage. I do not even have family there...and I am ANGRY. DO YOU HEAR ME? I AM ANGRY AND I AM NOT ALONE. I AM NOT ALONE.

This war is eight years old....and ONE THIRD of the deaths have occured on your watch...during your 9 months in office. Get that? ONE THIRD!

Just bring them home or send them help. Remember you are writing history here.....every breath you take is going down in history....and every breath lost by our troops....is your history.

Presidential Candidate, Obama, Pledges to Put Health Care Negotiations on C-SPAN

This is a bill that will affect 100% of Americans. Obama as a Presidential candidate pledged to put the negotiations for healthcare reform on CSPAN.

President Obama, YOU LIE!

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Enemy List Grows

Never at any time in my life do I recall an American President and his Administration berating the American people who disagree with him. It is absolutely mind boggling to me. If you think about it, it is actually frightening. The American President wants to berate and silence those who disagree with his agenda.

Excuse me, Obamessiah.....but I am an American too. I have a right to disagree with you. While your sheeple sing your praises with children in public schools, let me remind them that if you are successful in silencing those who disagree with you....eventually they will be in our shoes. Oh their lucky damn day....you can silence them too.

This is not a one party nation contrary to what others believe. I do not have to agree with you, Obamessiah. In fact, there is a pretty good chance...that it is 100%

I never recall Bush name calling his protesters....oh wait...yes he did. He referred to them as PATRIOTS! You know...people who love their country. He may not have been perfect, but he was surely a class act.

If Fox news is presenting a political viewpoint what do you call your healthcare reform in nightly TV programming? What do you call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC? Wanna know what I call it? The Obamessiah channels. They are pushing YOUR agenda down the throats of American people. Along with your arts program....wait...are you using American TAX DOLLARS to do that?

The Obamaessiah needs to remember he is not a celebrity. He needs to shut his mouth, stay off the TV and get back to work bankrupting our country. The sooner he does that...the sooner people will wake up and see him for the idiot he is.

I just have one question for all you liberals....what do you call countries where people are silenced and ridiculed for their political beliefs. You know....those "one party" countries? Name one for me.

Mmm Mmmm Mmm

With Fox, Obama's Enemies List Grows

Thursday, October 8, 2009

It is all about God!

I am changing up my post this week to share with you my faith. You are not forced to read it. You can close the page and be done. I hope you won't.

I do not intend to debate my faith. I am only going to share it with those who choose to read it.

My life was like any other Mom's. Hectic, full calendars...dinner in time to get the kids in bed at a decent time for the following school day. I plugged along in my life without any real disasters. My Father and I were never very close. We had, at best, a turbulent relationship. My parents divorced when I was very young so I really never grew up with him. He was mean at times....very. A time or two in my life I remember him being nice for a minute. He was mentally ill. He was an addict. His addictions changed...from alcohol, to food. He grew to be an enormous sized man....some 500+ pounds at last check. Still, when he had nobody....I took him in. He was totally bedridden. Not able to walk....even to the bathroom. I took control of his food...and he lost down to 286 pounds. HE COULD WALK AGAIN! And walk he did....right to the refridgerator. Gained it all back...and we decided a nursing home was our only option. He was so big that just having him in the house was a dangerous situation for him. If there had been a fire.....we could never have gotten him out. He died April 6, 2001. Just a month before my youngest daughter was born. It hurt me....because we never connected. We never had one of those moments where I knew he loved me. I prayed that he was finally at peace.

A month later my baby comes....and then each year for three years my oldest daughter presented me with grandchildren. Life was hectic...and good.

My Mom and I were very close. She had major health problems...and in the summer of 2000 she came to live with me. The doctors had decided she could never live on her own and had suggested a nursing home. No way. We went to rehab three times a week...sometimes twice in a day. Hectic took on a whole new meaning for me. She had to learn to talk again.....learn to count money, and even make simple glass of water. She did it though. She had determination like I have never seen before.

She eventually moved back home to live indpendently...and her visits to us were once or twice a year. Though we talked everyday...either by phone or instant message. Her health was holding steady for a while...and then I could hear a change in her voice. She began having episodes that put her in the hospital....and she was losing her strength. Still, she came to visit...but at the airport...when I saw her....I was totally not prepared to SEE such a decline in her health. I remember as we were leaving the parking lot of the airport...it hit me. SHE WAS GOING TO DIE. I even had this overwhelming feeling that she would die during her visit....which she did.

My world came crashing down. Nothing made sense anymore...everything I had thought I knew about life...suddenly I understood that I knew nothing. I was angry with God. I wanted my Mother back. She deserved so much more than she had in life....her life was very hard.

As a child, I was raised between church of Christ and Baptist. Depending on which Grandmother had me that weekend. They shared some basic beliefs...but as an adult, I stayed with church of Christ. Now..my mother is gone...and everything I had learned about our Savior was gone too. After getting past my anger, I had to ask for forgiveness. When I say I was angry with God, that is an understatement. So I renewed my relationship with the Lord and sought understanding. I used prayer, my Bible, the internet...television....everything I could to find what I felt God wanted me to know.

I will see my Mom again. That was the first thing I came to understand. Armed with that knowledge, I found peace to continue my quest for knowledge.

I have come to believe that none of the churches really have it right. Although, I tend to lean more toward the church of God. Even within that "denomination" there are many contradicting beliefs. Is the Sabbath Saturday or Sonday. There are scriptures to support both. Still there is only one right way.

I am no longer sure that I believe there will be a rapture...though I would like there to be one. That being said, I am armed and ready to endure what I must for the Lord. I do believe we are seeing prophesy fulfilled at warp speed. Glenn Beck always says keep a diary, we are living in increbible times. I agree...but for more than his reason. I find prophesy very comforting, even though prophesy is not a pretty picture. It confirms my faith in God. I do not need prophesy to confirm it....but it is just amazing to see it come to be. What is sad is seeing people turn from God. Seeing our great nation turn into a "if it feels good, do it" nation. It hurts me to know that some 3500 human lives are taken each day before they can even begin. We have turned from God. Plain and simple.

Sometimes I am afraid but then I remember...the Lord says not to be afraid. When you realize that at the end of this long journey....Jesus returns, nothing seems so bad anymore. To be a part of a generation who could possibly be alive to see the return....is absolutely amazing. I may not make it, but I really believe my children could.

I truly believe that God is a loving God. I have tossed my hellfire and brimstone fears...and I know that God will never condemn anyone to hell that lived and never even heard the name Jesus, or the teenager who died before accepting Christ. I do not believe that God will condemn us to hell to burn forever....but rather the lake of fire is nothing more than the final death....the forever death. The thought of a final death does not feel much better than the thought of a lake of fire. If you have been shown the way to salvation and reject it, well...I honestly do not know if you get another chance. Time will tell.

Throughout my life I used to joke that God and I were going to have to have a discussion about the oceans being no more. The ocean is my favorite place on earth. I never could understand why? In my searches....I came to believe that almost everyone will get a second chance to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If almost everyone who ever lives is resurrected to live again and be given the chance to know God.....I now understand why the oceans will be no more.

The sad part is that even being given a second chance...many will reject him. It just blows my mind.

Many Christians may read this and disagree with what I believe. That is not important. What is important is that we accept Christ. That you believe he dies on the cross for your sins. That is the very basic belief that will begin to save us. From there we must try to emulate Jesus. We will never do it....it is the effort that we are graded on.

The reality is...that so much of God's word is diluted by man...and most of us are not fully aware of how to do everything God wants us to do. Thankfully, Jesus will show us.

If you have not been saved....and would like to be....you can say a simple prayer...and ask Jesus to come into your heart and forgive you of your sins. You can be in your pajamas, or in a suit. It does not matter. What matters is that you are sincere.

"Dear God I know I'm a sinner, I know I am not where I want to be, and I want your forgiveness! I believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for my sins.

Please wash me clean from all sin, shame, and guilt, come into my life Jesus to be my Lord and Savior. I ask this in your name Jesus.


Either dust off your Bible or go buy one. Start reading. I suggest reading the Gospel of John first....then the old Testament followed by the New Testament. Surround yourself with people who are Christians. Find a church where you are comfortable and continue to read the Bible daily. You may find yourself changing churches a time or two as you grow in your faith. When I would see that a church said it was their way or burn in hell forever....I was usually outta there FAST!

I find it totally unimportant to get caught up in the pomp and circumstance of churches. What I find important is that they have the basics right. What are the basics? I believe the basics are The Ten Commandments and knowing that God sent his only son to die for your sins.

God bless you and if you are still reading this....THANK YOU!

Below you will find a link to my favorite website. I use this to look at scripture in all the different versions of the Bible. It helps me when I am looking for meaning. Some Bibles are easier to read.....and understand. I do prefer the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible. I hear rumor the New American Standard will soon go out of print. I suspect that rumor to be true because Barnes and Noble told me they are getting hard to find. Why? Well, that could be another entire topic...lol


Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Are Hate Crimes Laws Racist?

I am all for people being punished for crimes they commit and are convicted. Still, hate crime laws seem more than a little unfair to me in the way they are being handled....or.....IGNORED.

A crime is a crime. I see no reason for additional laws to make the same crime more of a crime because of who the victim is. Hate crime laws are racist laws as far as I am concerned. They make it a worse crime with increased penalties for those convicted. Yet the very same crime against a white person is just a crime.

The Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome murders. Channon and Christopher were a white college couple who were carjacked, kidnapped by five blacks in Knoxville, Tennessee. They were both raped, horribly mutilated and murdered. Is this a hate crime?

If this had been white attackers and black victims...we would have likely seen riots if not charged as a hate crime.

Or what about Brian Milligan, Jr. of Buffalo, New York was savagely beaten by a gang of blacks because he was dating a black woman. He was punched and hit in the head with a chunk of concrete by a gang of blacks. They broke his jaw by kicking him in the face. Milligan’s father said he was tormented just walking down the street. Blacks called him "cracker" and then asked her why she was with a white guy and not a black guy. This is clearly a hate crime and it had better be charged as such when arrests are made.

What about a couple of black students beating up a white boy on a school bus? Is this not a hate crime?

Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student

Oh this cannot possibly be racially motivated....I mean the black kid was just protecting his seat, right?

We have laws already for crimes committed against people. What makes a black person being beat up more serious than a white person? Or a homosexual person being attacked much more serious than a heterosexual? They are all wrong. All should be punished to the full extent of the law.....but not more just because someone is black or gay.

This is reverse discrimination if you ask me. A crime is a crime. Period.

The double standard must be stopped.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Jury Duty Beckons.....

Have a wonderful week everyone!

Big Government Health Care PSA

A parody PSA about Big Government and its plans to take over health care. A spoof of Will Ferrell's ad for MoveOn.org. On one hand it is very funny....but when you really think about it.....it is scary.

And the more frightening side..

Glenn Becks 912 Movement And What It Means!

Many people do not understand Glenn Beck or his 912 movement. The following was taken from Glenn Beck's website.

Glenn Beck is telling Americans in all walks of life that there are 9 principles that must be lived by:

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The 12 values Glenn Beck is also telling Americans they must embrace are:

Hard Work
Personal Responsibility

Too bad the government does not share the same principles and values.

Friday, October 2, 2009

A Chilling Effect.....

Define falsehood and rumor. Does ones opinion or true belief in something mean it is a rumor? Or it is their opinion...and they are free to speak their opinion because we have freedom of speech in this country?

Czar seeks 'chilling effect' on internet

From American Thinker:

"Another category of rumor propagators are the generally self-interested. Like when "Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers." (p. 13) ("Former" radical?)"

Umm...is this not freedom of speech? Or is it to be stifled because the current President does not like it?

Of course, creating a "chilling effect" isn't censorship. It is just a way to silence the right.

Witless Winner of the Week, Whoopie Goldberg!

Interview with the victim and an associate of Polanski

Roman Polanski was arrested this week in Switzerland and faces extradition to the U.S. for raping a 13 year old girl some three decades ago. I simply cannot understand how Hollywood can stand behind this man and believe it should be dropped. This is clearly a difference in liberalism and conservatism. If this is a shining example of Hollywood liberalism, I am proud to be a redneck conservative.

I love how Whoopie says, it wasn't a "RAPE RAPE". What IS a "RAPE RAPE", Whoopie? This was a 13 year old girl who said NO. You seem to believe it is not a "RAPE RAPE" because she was aware. Hmm....she said no....so he drugs her. You seem to think it was not a "RAPE RAPE" because her parents were aware. Whoopie, it was a "RAPE RAPE". Give ya the benefit of the doubt....let's just say she WAS aware....and Roman had her parents approval. It is still a "RAPE RAPE". A grown man having sex with a child....is RAPE! What part of that do you not understand? If her parents were aware, they should be prosecuted too. In fact, they should be charged with nothing less than endangering the welfare of a child. If they were aware...they should be charged with the same charges as the rapist, Roman Polanski. Get the picture? A 13 year old is not capable of consent with a grown man. This was a "RAPE RAPE" that was plea bargained down to sex with a minor. Apparently, the judge changed his mind. Polanski, fearing a hundred years, fled.

I would have expected better from you, Whoopie. You wouldn't "necessarily" want your child having sex at 13 or 14? Is having sex the same as being raped?

Whoopie, define "necessarily". I am having a hard time with this one. I do not want my children having sex until they are adults...and hopefully married. I just cannot seem to think of anything that would "necessarily" would make me feel any different.

Not even rape.

Debra Winger, you are pretty damn witless too.

Kudos to Joy Behar. I never agree with her, but I do this time.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Khadafy: "I Share Obama Vision"! Obama PRESIDENT FOEVER!

Tell me, President Obama, do YOU wish to remain President forever?

Khadafy: I Share Obama Vision!

Of course he wants Obama to be President forever. Obama just gave him a boat load of money. Yep....for the charities run by the Khadafy children.

Let's Celebrate 60 Years of The Peoples Republic of China! Yea, Right Here in America!

Since when did America take part in celebrations of communism? Let's raise the flag of COMMUNIST China in DC! Don't stop there....gotta light the Empire State Building in the colors of the COMMUNIST flag of China.

Is this a joke? Wait...I know...I must be on Candid Camera!

Empire State building to glow communist red, yellow
Skyscraper to blaze Chinese colors in honor of 60th anniversary of regime

Get To Know Your "Science Czar", John Holdren!

Now we all know that NONE of the CZARS believe these things anymore now that they are in the White House, right? He is also an advocate of mass sterilization by means of our drinking water so there would be no need to seize so many babies. Whew! Scared me for a moment.

How did we get to the point to where these people are in The White House? Could you imagine the ramifications of putting birth control into the public water supply? This means putting DRUGS in the water. Drugs have side effects. Children drink this water.

This is one of the scariest men yet.

Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women
Proposed government force adoption if mother refused to get abortion

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

In Your Heart, You Know He Is Right

Even liberals....know he is right.

Deliver us, OBAMA?

What else can I add to this?

Get To Know Your "Diversity Czar", Mark Lloyd!

So Obama's handpicked "diversity czar" says that the revolution in Venezuela was important; that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough and that we need to look at who's going to step down so someone else can have power.

How are you possibly going to convince the American people this is right?

Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar

'Diversity czar' takes heat over remarks.
Lloyd lauded Chavez's rise

Mark Lloyd: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down'

'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down'? Is this, could this possibly be.... a racist statement? Oh no, it can't be....because he is a progressive not a conservative. Now if a white person had said: 'Black People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' it would not only be racist but probably hate speech AND a hate crime.

Mark Lloyd: Redistribution of Wealth Czar at the FCC

Monday, September 28, 2009

Get To Know Your "Safe School Czar", Kevin Jennings!

EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure

Just when I think it cannot get any worse....guess what? It just gets worse and worse. Get to know your safe school czar, Kevin Jennings. He not only failed to report an illegal homoesexual relationship of one of his underage students with an older man, but he wants to educate YOUR children in the art of homosexuality. I guess after Van Jones, nothing should surprise me. It only renews lack of faith in Obama.

'Safe schools' chief encouraged child sex with older man
Washington Times: Kevin Jennings should 'come clean'

You know, Mr. Jennings, you will never teach my children about homosexuality. I decide when and how that is done. That is MY job as the parent of MY children.

I strongly suspect they will learn it as part of our religion. It is a sin, you know.

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job

Friday, September 25, 2009

Million Med March

I say to the vast majority of the Doctors of America, I support you!


Doctors fed up with Obama, massive march planned 10/01/09!
by DefendUSx September 25, 2009 01:49
From MedScape:

Physicians Are Talking About: The Million Med March on Washington

"I'm tired, mad as hell, and just not going to take it anymore," says Richard Chudacoff, MD, a gynecologist from Las Vegas. "I am going to Washington, DC. At noon, on Thursday, October 1, 2009, I will be on the Mall with a few other physicians."

Dr. Chudacoff is not talking about vacation plans. Rather, he intends to unite with other physicians in what he calls the Million Med March.

"We simply decided that we will not work that day and perhaps the day before and maybe even the day afterward," says Dr. Chudacoff. "Perhaps we will show the country that physicians are worth more than a $5 copay; that physicians are more important than a mid-level healthcare worker; and that our profession is needed, our services are required, and our practice is a calling to be respected, not a trade that is to be negotiated to the lowest bidder."

A letter posted by Dr. Chudacoff on www.obgyn.net in June has been spreading like wildfire across the Internet, finding its way to personal blogs, discussion groups, and professional forums. On June 23, it was posted to Medscape's Physician Connect (MPC), a physician-only discussion group, where it sparked a flurry of responses. A number of MPC postings suggest that Dr. Chudacoff will have plenty of company on October 1.

"Finally, something constructive," says a dermatologist. "I'll see you in DC on October 1. Some of the office staff, including our nurse, expressed a wish to be there too. Bring spouses and friends and anybody else who actually cares about healthcare in the US."

"I have cleared my schedule and plan to attend," responds a vascular surgeon. "I think this type of grassroots action, unaffiliated with hospitals, insurance companies, or the AMA, is likely to get the most sympathetic attention."

"This is the best proactive effort I have heard from physicians," says an MPC family medicine physician. "Actions speak louder than words."

"I can be there without changing my schedule," adds an anesthesiologist. "I was just terminated from my office-based practice where I have been for 7 years."

One physician's decision to take a stand and unite with his fellow colleagues has given doctors a simple way to show the public and elected officials that healthcare, for them, is not a political agenda. It is their life and livelihood. And in recent weeks, the partisan discussions in the Senate and House of Representatives on healthcare legislation have seemingly marginalized -- and at times even maligned -- physicians.

"I was for nationalized healthcare," says a family medicine physician, "but I thought that meant providing a safety net for needy Americans. But this monster of a bill is something quite different."

"Politicians and payers have turned our profession into a political football," retorts an anesthesiologist.

President Obama's recent tonsillectomy remark, in which he insinuated that doctors make medical decisions based on what they would be paid for a procedure rather than the best treatment for the patient, has further incensed physicians. "As a hard-working, conscientious physician, I am offended. It's like racial stereotyping. Only now it's about a group that is mostly overworked, tired, and saving people's lives," retorts a family medicine practitioner.

If the president is looking for greed within the healthcare system, Dr. Chudacoff suggests that he not take aim at primary care physicians. Chudacoff adds, "Medicine is going corporate, and we physicians are just flipping burgers so corporations have an improved bottom line."

Although fair compensation is an important issue among the organizers of the Million Med March, it is not the only issue. Medicine has become a toxic environment in which to work. Dr. Chudacoff underscores the situation. "Quality of care suffers with less time to see patients and less reimbursement received when we do see patients. We cannot do pro bono work as we have in the past because we have to see an ever increasing number of patients. This extra work is forced upon us when insurance companies, especially Medicare and Medicaid, constantly refuse to pay us in a timely fashion for our time and efforts. And then once we do see patients, our clinical acumen is stifled as we must follow a cookbook approach to patient care. It is time that we stand up for ourselves."

A vascular surgeon comments, "We can lead the way to real reform. Now is clearly the time to act, not just type."

On July 10, an MPC contributor and one of the supporters of the Million Med March launched a Website, www.millionmedmarch.com, to build support for the October event. The site announces a physician grassroots movement to re-establish honor, dignity, and worth to the medical profession. "The Million Med March movement has taken off, on so many sites, and within so many communities. Why now? The debate on national healthcare has forced this conversation, and this conversation has pushed us over the tipping point."

The mandate as stated on the Million Med March Website includes the following points:

•Services must be adequately reimbursed so that we may spend more time with our patients and not be forced to see an unsafe number of patients to pay for increased business costs.
•Less money must go into the hands of insurance companies' administrative costs, and more money must go towards patient care and medical research.
•We must abolish third-party payers or prevent a single-payer system for office visits and medical services; these services are costly to the patient, physician, and society as a whole.
•Our patients need access to brand-name drugs that are as affordable in the United States as in Canada and Mexico.
•We must have medical malpractice reform, with caps on all damages, so that we can practice without the fear of needless and unwarranted lawsuits that only benefit attorneys.
Some MPC contributors voice concern that the Million Med March scheduled for October will occur too late to have any meaningful impact on healthcare reform. "The health reform bill is going nowhere," says an anesthesiologist. "Let's make a major statement between its failure and the next attempt to marginalize the docs."

A plastic surgeon adds, "Stand up for our profession and come to DC."

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Liberal Media Hypocrisy Test

Listen AND watch! See if you can spot the hypocrisy! Ready, Set, GO!

Just a little side note...there was not ONE arrest during the Tea Party on September 12.

Live Free or Die Fighting, A Letter from Jerry Wilson

Friends & Fellow Americans,

When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won’t just be us gun owners or Fair Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You’ll be right there next to us.

You see, you all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the Second Amendment, etc. And you thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You’ll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television – it’s all good. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost – go team! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as “politics as usual” – “the same old stuff”.

In the end, it’ll all be OK won’t it?

Not this time. There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government’s grab of personal freedom, it’s blatant abuse of the constitution, and it’s attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won’t start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.

As for you, why… you’ll be shocked because you didn’t see it coming. And eventually you’ll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You’ll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you’ll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.

You know, McCain wasn’t much of a candidate. I’ll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don’t blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn’t know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can’t negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.

Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America. They’re not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe; they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Patriotic Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in the next two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it…get ready. It will happen.

When that event happens, whatever “it” is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.

Jerry Wilson
Ozark, Missouri
Live Free or Die Fighting

Black Republican History

Black Republican History

Drenched in blood of slavery

Abraham Lincoln (Republican) and Freed Slaves

Now you tell me who is Racist? It sure isn't the conservatives!

Democrats Reject Putting Pre-vote Health Bill Online

Transparency at its finest!

I guess if they are not going to read it, we must not be allowed to.

Democrats nix putting pre-vote health bill online

Pelosi: I "Absolutely" Support Putting Health-Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

Un huh...sure. You were brave to say that since you knew it would be voted down by your fellow Democrats.


Conservatism -vs- Liberalism

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

I am not sure who wrote this...but they really summed it up.

"A democracy is where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49."
Thomas Jefferson

The Government Can! Sing it with us....The GOVERNMENT CAN!

Think they will show this one in the schools? I think I might just demand it!

Didn't Deserve This

Life....it is a beautiful thing!

School Kids Taught to Praise Obama

It is said that this took place at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in New Jersey. They will not confirm this...in fact they will not even respond. Lyrics can be found under the video.

If this was my daughter's class, I would be looking for the finest civil rights attorney in America. This is clearly indoctrination. They are even taking words from children's Christian hymns and changing them to fit a liberal perception of Obama as the Messiah. My family will reserve our singing of praises...for The Lord.

His Classroom's Marchin' On!

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Are we still in America?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

End Federal Gag Order on Medicare Cuts

"It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent."
Barack Obama

Obama, define "transparency"!

Walk the Streets in Anger

Monday, September 21, 2009

Liberals Against The Patriot Act

I remember the outrage from Liberal America when along came The Patriot Act under the Bush Administration. Obama's congressional vote was "nay", yet he is pushing for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act today.

Where are the screams from Liberal America? Where is the outrage? If it was a bad thing under Bush, isn't it bad under Obama?

If liberals were outraged then and not now, isn't that hypocricy?

Frankly, under the Obama Administration, we really no longer need the patriot act because Obama has the Black Widow. The Black Widow gives far more syping capability than The Patriot Act ever did.

I find it interesting that the bill, S.1686, for The Patriot Act is described as "a bill to place reasonable safeguards on the use of surveillance and other authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act, and for other purposes".

I guess the Liberals believe this.....Go figure.

So I wonder how they feel about "The Black Widow"? Oh wait, that's right...CNN, ABC, MSNBC and CBS never reported on that. I guess the liberals just don't know about it.

I also find it interesting that we have breaking news of preventing a terror attack just before voting to reauthorize The Patriot Act. Great timing, huh?

I was against The Patriot Act then....and now. I am also against The Black Widow.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

50,000 Muslims To Hold Islamic Prayer Service On Capitol Hill

50,000 Muslims To Hold Islamic Prayer Service On Capitol Hill

Islam on Capitol Hill

"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Barack Obama

Please take time from your day...on 9/25/09 at 1pm ET.....to pray to Our Heavenly Father through his son Jesus Christ. You do not have to be anywhere special.....just stop what you are doing and pray. Set your online reminder service....mark your calendars....do whatever it takes for you to remember the time and date.

Our country is on the verge of something very sinister. Let's outnumber them in prayer....and ask the Lord to lift up our nation and protect us.

Share this with your friends, family and church leaders. If your church has bells, ask that they be rung at that time.

We can make 50,000 Islamic prayers......a drop in the bucket. Let's shoot for MILLIONS!


ACORN? How much STIMULUS money did they get?

This is your stimulus money at work. I am not going to tell you how much "STIMULUS" ACORN received until the bottom of this post. If you are outraged by that answer...please call The White House and ask them why. I am certain they will be happy to divulge this information. Obama has quite a long history with ACORN....despite what ACORNS website says tonight after this recent development. Then I challenge you to check out the FOX News Website then go to CNN and ask yourself why CNN is not covering this. Even liberals should be OUTRAGED! ABC and MSNBC gave it a little blip...with somehwat of a slanted edge against the, you know, CONSERVATIVE journalist.

What is wrong is wrong. There is a whole lot wrong here.

ACORN received 52,000,000 from 1994 until the Stimulus package. With the Stimulus...they received 8.5 BILLION dollars. EIGHT-POINT-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS!

National Debt Limit

Can you take a guess at what the interest is on 13 TRILLION dollars? The new national debt limit? What would you think?

Go ahead guess.......really! Give it your best shot!

I cannot keep a secret so I am going to tell you.

650 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Yep...that is what we pay in interest on our debt. Wonder how much of that goes to China?

Our country is trying to nationalize health care.....when we just asked for our debt limit to be increased.

Can you say....AMERICA....BANKRUPT?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Cass Sunstein Quotes

Let's get to know Cass Sunstein!

But first, let me tell you....if there were a rat in my house, expulsion would be moot, it would die. Hell, I might even use a shotgun to kill it. Kidding on the shotgun but rest assured the rat would die.

"Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection:
Everything depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses."
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12

For more lovely Cass Sunstein sentiments....click below. Read them and weep.

These were originally on the internet and I had a link to them in a .pdf. They were removed...but I had saved them so here they are. Sorry for the formatting.

Cass Sunstein Quotes
Second Amendment
Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns.
The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on
various grounds. As late as 1980, it would have been preposterous to argue that the
Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns, and no federal court
invalidated a gun control restriction on Second Amendment grounds until 2007. Yet
countless Americans politicians, in recent years, have acknowledged that they respect the
individual right to bear arms, at least in general terms. Their views are a product of the
energetic efforts of meaning entrepreneurs – some from the National Rifle Association,
who have press a particular view of the Second Amendment.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 172-173
The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests
typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle
Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as
jurisprudential twins. The National Association of Broadcasters is prepared to make selfserving
and outlandish claims about the First Amendment before the public and before
the courts, and to pay lawyers and publicists a lot of money to help establish those claims.
(Perhaps they will ultimately succeed.) The National Rifle Association does the same
thing with the Second Amendment. In both cases, those whose social and economic
interests are at stake are prepared to use the Constitution, however implausibly invoked,
in order to give a veneer of principle and respectability to arguments that would
otherwise seem hopelessly partisan and self-interested.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 173
“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right,
then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to bear arms. ”
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”
In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was
interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second
Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second
Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word
'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my
lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't
guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second
Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for
the defense of the state."
It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering
over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and
the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a
constitutional question in an interview on national television. (Chief Justice John Roberts
is not about to go on Fox News to say that the claimed right to same-sex marriage is a
fraud on the American people perpetrated by special interest groups.) Should we
therefore conclude that Burger had a moment of uncharacteristic recklessness? I do not
think so. Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus within the culture of
informed lawyers and judges—a conclusion that was so widely taken for granted that it
seemed to him to be a fact, and not an opinion at all.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
…[T]he Second Amendment seems to specify its own purpose, which is to protect the
"well regulated Militia." If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (as Burger
believed), then we might speculate that it safeguards not individual rights but federalism
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
…[T]he Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment
creates an individual right to own guns. There is a decent chance that the Court will say
that it does. Whatever the Court says, we have seen an amazingly rapid change in
constitutional understandings--even a revolution--as an apparently fraudulent
interpretation pushed by "special interest groups" (read: the National Rifle Association)
has become mainstream.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
Even if the Second Amendment does confer an individual right, and therefore imposes
limits on national gun-control legislation, a further question remains. Does the Second
Amendment apply to the states? By its plain terms, the original Bill of Rights applies
only to the national government. To be sure, most (but not all) of the listed rights are now
understood to have been "incorporated" in the Fourteenth Amendment and made
applicable to the states through that route. But is the Second Amendment incorporated as
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
How did the individual rights position, so marginal and even laughable among judges and
lawyers for so long, come to be treated as a respectable view--and even to be described as
the standard model by 2007? It is certainly relevant that the National Rifle Association,
and other like-minded groups and individuals, have sponsored and funded an endless
stream of supportive papers and research. The Second Amendment revolution has been
influenced by an intensely committed social movement with political and legal arms. But
it is also true that for many decades lawyers and law professors paid hardly any attention
to the Second Amendment.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
But whatever the founding generation may have thought, the Second Amendment has
become a shorthand, or a rallying cry, for a deeply felt commitment on the part of tens of
millions of Americans. There would be not merely prudence, but also a kind of charity
and respect, in judicial decisions that uphold reasonable restrictions without rejecting that
commitment, and without purporting to untangle the deepest mysteries about the meaning
of the Constitution's most mysterious provision.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007
In the context of use of guns, it might be helpful to emphasize that the National Rifle
Association is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, and that manufacturers of guns
are often behind efforts to claim that the Constitution guarantees rights of gun ownership.
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers
an individual the right to own guns for nonmilitary purposes. In doing so, the Court was
greatly influenced by the social setting in which it operated, where that judgment already
had broad public support. In recent years, there has come to be a general social
understanding that the Second Amendment does protect at least some kind of individual
right; and that understanding greatly affects American politics. The Supreme Court’s
ruling in favor of an individual’s right to bear arms for military purposes was not really a
statement on behalf of the Constitution, as it was written by those long dead; it was based
on judgments that are now widespread among the living.
--Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton University Press,
2009, p. 5
But there is a radically different reading of Heller. The constitutional text is ambiguous,
and many historians believe that the Second Amendment does not, in fact, create a right
to use guns for nonmilitary purposes.8 In their view, the Court’s reading is untrue to the
relevant materials. If they are right, then it is tempting to understand Heller not as
Marbury but as a modern incarnation of Lochner v. New York, in which the Court
overrode democratic judgments in favor of a dubious understanding of the Constitution.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “Second Amendment Minimalism,” Harvard Law Review,
Vol. 122: 246
Hunting & Animal Rights
"We ought to ban hunting"
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a
form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination
of human beings.”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University
But I think that we should go further. We should focus attention not only on the
“enforcement gap,” but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In
short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments,
entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It
is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed
European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
If we understand "rights" to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already
do have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not terribly controversial... Almost
everyone agrees that people should not be able to torture animals or to engage in acts of
cruelty against them. And indeed, state law includes a wide range of protections against
cruelty and neglect. We can build on state law to define a simple, minimalist position in
favor of animal rights: The law should prevent acts of cruelty to animals.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). Introduction
“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are
persons, or that they are not property. A state could certainly confer rights on a pristine
area, or a painting, and allow people to bring suit on its behalf, without therefore saying
that that area and that painting may not be owned. It might, in these circumstances, seem
puzzling that so many people are focusing on the question of whether animals are
property. We could retain the idea of property but also give animals far more protection
against injury or neglect of their interests.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 11
Do animals have standing? To many people, the very idea seems odd. But several cases
suggest that the answer might be yes.
In a remarkably large number of cases in the federal courts, animals appear as named
…Indeed, I have not been able to find any federal statute that allows animals to sue in
their own names. As a rule, the answer is therefore quite clear: Animals lack standing as
such, simply because no relevant statute confers a cause of action on animals.
It seems possible, however, that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to
protect their own rights and interests. Congress might do this in the belief that in some
contexts, it will be hard to find any person with an injury in fact to bring suit in his own
name. And even if statutes protecting animal welfare are enforceable by human beings,
Congress might grant standing to animals in their own right, particularly to make a public
statement about whose interests are most directly at stake, partly to increase the number
of private monitors of illegality, and partly to bypass complex inquiries into whether
prospective human plaintiffs have injuries in fact. Indeed, I believe that in some
circumstances, Congress should do just that, to provide a supplement to limited public
enforcement efforts.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 259-260
In the future, legislative decisions on such questions will have considerable symbolic
importance. But they will not only be symbolic, for they will help define the real-world
meaning of legal texts that attempt to protect animal welfare – statutes that now promise
a great deal but deliver far too little.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 261
Do animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some
minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that
question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land—to show the range of
possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable
people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering
and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by
animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the “autonomy” of animals, or that
object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications
of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of
the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also
suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
…[R]epresentatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that
anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. If, for example, a farm is treating
horses cruelly and in violation of legal requirements, a suit could be brought, on behalf of
those animals, to bring about compliance with the law.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Now turn to some quite radical suggestions. Suppose that we continue to believe that
animal suffering is the problem that should concern us, and that we want to use the law to
promote animal welfare. We might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended
and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be
insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal
suffering will remain very high. To make such an argument convincing, it would be
helpful, whether or not necessary, to argue not only that the harms to animals are serious,
but also that the benefits, to human beings, of the relevant practices are simply too small
to justify the continuation of those practices. Many people who urge radical steps—who
think, for example, that people should not eat meat—do so because they believe that
without such steps, the level of animal suffering will be unacceptably severe.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Of course the largest issue involves eating meat. I believe that that meat-eating would be
acceptable if decent treatment is given to the animals used for food. Killing animals,
whether or not troublesome, is far less troublesome than suffering. But if, as a practical
matter, animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering,
then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal
to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be
extremely radical, and like prohibition, it would undoubtedly create black markets and
have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects. But the principle seems clear: People should be
much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
We should increase the likelihood that animals will have good lives—we should not try
to ensure that there are as many animals as possible.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Every reasonable person believes in animal rights. Even the sharpest critics of animal
rights support the anticruelty laws. I have suggested that the simple moral judgment
behind these laws is that animal suffering matters, and that this judgment supports a
significant amount of reform. Most modestly, private suits should be permitted to prevent
illegal cruelty and neglect.
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Less modestly, anticruelty laws should be extended to areas that are now exempt from
them, including scientific experiments and farming. There is no good reason to permit the
level of suffering that is now being experienced by millions, even billions of living
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection: Everything
depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If
rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps
even whether, they can be expelled from houses.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12
The idea here is that animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant
respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings.
Sometimes such arguments posit general rights held by living creatures (and natural
objects) against human depredations. In especially powerful forms, these arguments are
utilitarian in character, stressing the often extreme and unnecessary suffering of animals
who are hurt or killed. The Animal Welfare Act reflects these concerns.
--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory
State, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 69
Free Speech
…[M]any discussion groups and websites, less and often more extreme, that can be found
on the Internet. Discussion groups and websites of this kind have been around for a
number of years… On the National Rifle Association’s ‘Bullet N’ Board,’ a place for
discussion of matters of mutual interest, someone calling himself “Warmaster” explained
how to make bombs out of ordinary household materials. Warmaster explained, “These
simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even though all the materials can be
easily obtained by anyone (including minors).”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Republic 2.0, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 47
To the extent that they weaken the power of the general interest intermediaries and
increase people’s ability to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would
prefer to avoid, emerging technologies, including the Internet, create serious dangers.
I don’t want government regulation of the blogosphere in the form of mandated links or
mandated civility or, you know, if you’re doing liberal ideas on your site you have to
have conservative ideas too. I don’t want any of that stuff… But I do have some ideas
and they’re about private voluntary solutions. One is that blog providers, either writers or
those who operate them should, if they are involved in opinion – at least most of the time,
work hard to obey norms of, let’s call them, civility and diversity. So not complete
diversity. You’re entitled to have a point of view. But to think that some of the time if
people are reading you its good to catch their eye with something that might irritate them
a bit.
-- Bloggingheads.tv, Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School and
Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA Law School video debate,
recorded May 27, 2008 and posted June 2, 2008.
A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should
not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 92
I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of
the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring
greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views. The First Amendment
should not stand as an obstacle to democratic efforts to accomplish these goals. A New
Deal for speech would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in
promoting political deliberation and citizenship. It would reject Justice Holmes’
“marketplace” conception of free speech, a conception that disserves the aspirations of
those who wrote America’s founding document.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. 119
Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and
television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether,
as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving
democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of
the First Amendment in the democratic process.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,
1995, p. xi
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not
necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137
[M]any people all over the world have become even more concerned about the risks of a
situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another…Democracy
does best with what James Madison called a ‘yielding and accommodating spirit,’ and
that spirit is at risk whenever people sort themselves into enclaves in which their own
views and commitments are constantly reaffirmed… [S]uch sorting should not be
identified with freedom, and much less with democratic self-government.
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p. xii
Civil Liberties
[C]ourts should ordinarily require restrictions on civil liberties to be authorized by the
legislature, not simply by the executive.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004
The availability heuristic and probability neglect often lead people to treat risks as much
greater than they in fact are, and hence to accept risk-reduction strategies that do
considerable harm and little good. Civil liberties may be jeopardized for precisely this
reason. And when the burdens of government restrictions are faced by an identifiable
minority rather by the majority, the risk of unjustified action is significantly increased.
--Cass R. Sunstein, Fear & Liberty, working paper, December 12, 2004
Sunstein scolds readers like small-minded, selfish children for opposing the size, scope,
expansion and skyrocketing expense of government:
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn
it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of
probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it
if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the
community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes
there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth
defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without
placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without
dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes,” The Chicago
Tribune, April 14, 1999
Second Bill of Rights
My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s
heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect
both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and
clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 1
Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious
form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of
contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention”
and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is
incoherent, a tangle of confusions.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 3
Those of us who have plenty of money and opportunities owe a great deal to an active
government that is willing and able to protect what we have.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 4
In a nutshell, the New Deal helped vindicate a simple idea: No one really opposes
government intervention. Even the people who most loudly denounce government
interference depend on it every day.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 19
For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and
economic guarantees in the bill of rights.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 115
The Judiciary
[I]t is reasonable to suggest that the meaning of federal statutory law should not be based
on whether a litigant has drawn a panel of judges appointed by a president from a
particular party—or on whether the Supreme Court is dominated by judges of any
particular ideological stripe.
--Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An
Empirical Investigation of Chevron, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies, Working Paper 06-15, May 2006
Government Regulation
No institution in the executive branch, moreover, is currently responsible for long-range
research and thinking about regulatory problems. It would be highly desirable to create
such an office under the President, particularly for exploring problems whose solutions
require extensive planning, most notably the environment. Nor is there an office charged
with acting as an initiator of as well as a brake on regulation. Some entity within the
executive branch, building on the ombudsman device, should be entrusted with the job of
guarding against failure to implement regulatory programs. Such an entity would be
especially desirable in overcoming the collective action and related problems that tend to
defeat enforcement.
--Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory
State, Harvard University Press, 1990, p. 108
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has been entrusted with the
power to coordinate regulatory policy and to ensure reasonable priority-setting. In the
Clinton Administration, OIRA appears to have become an advisory body, more limited in
its power than it was in the Bush and Reagan administrations. In view of the absence of
good priority-setting, and the enormous room for savings costs and increasing regulatory
benefits, this is highly unfortunate.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315
OIRA should see, as one of its central assignments, the task of overcoming governmental
myopia and tunnel vision, by ensuring aggregate risks are reduced and that agency focus
on particular risks does not mean that ancillary risks are ignored or increased.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 315
Congress should add to existing legislation a general requirement that agencies consider a
range of risks to life and health, including substitute risks, to the extent that this is
feasible. Finally, OIRA should undertake the process of scrutinizing risk regulations to
show that agency action does not suffer from the kind of tunnel vision exemplified by so
much of modern risk regulation.
Problems of selective attention, interest-group power, and myopia have created a range of
irrationalities and injustices in modern government.
-- Cass R. Sunstein, Free Markets & Social Justice, Oxford University Press,
1997, p. 316