Last Updated:October 25 @ 07:17 am

Salvato: Why Progressive Obama Believes He’s Correct

By Frank Salvato

The furor surrounding President Obama’s recent comments about the authority of the United States Supreme Court to overturn enacted legislation brought consternation from many a constitutional scholar as well as at least three federal appeals court judges from the Fifth Circuit, who demanded a clarification from Attorney General Eric Holder.

To his credit, Mr. Holder responded to that demand with a two-and-one-half page letter stating that “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute,” although he did throw in a dash of arrogant positioning in adding that the power to do so should only be exercised in “appropriate cases,” and that legislation passed by Congress should be “presumptively constitutional.” Arrogance aside – audacity aside – Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder are but two of the Progressive ideologues in the current administration who truly and honestly believe they are correct in their understanding of the US Constitution.

Mr. Obama allowed for his true beliefs about the pecking order under the US Constitution to come forth on Mondaywhen he said:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress...And I’d just remind Conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

He added, the following day, that the court had traditionally shown “deference” to Congress and that “the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.”

While many see Mr. Obama’s comments as arrogant, or even empirical, the truth is that he and those of his ideology – the Progressive ideology – truly believe in this line of thinking. Granted, Mr. Obama did deliver his comments in a most conceited manner, something I believe he does by second nature, as do all in his inner circle, but he believes in his words nevertheless. And the reason he believes he is correct is because he understands the US Constitution through Progressive eyes.

For the record – and this is indisputable – Mr. Obama was never officially a “professor” who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He is identified by the university as a “senior lecturer.” And although he did take the lectern for a few classes each year – even as he was serving in the Illinois State Legislature – so, too, do graduate student teachers’ assistants. That said, he did take the lectern to teach about the US Constitution and the philosophy used to create the US Constitution...as he understood it.

As noted by DiscoverTheNetworks.org, David Horowitz’s impeccably thorough guide to the political Left:

“According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism, ‘America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.’ They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The Progressives, Pestritto says, wanted ‘a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.

“In the Progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the Founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand. The Progressives reasoned that although America’s Founders had felt it necessary to limit the power of government because of their experience with King George III, government, as a result of historical evolution, was no longer the menace it once had been; rather, they believed government had become capable of solving an ever-greater array of societal problems – problems the Founders could never have envisioned. Consequently, the Progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

“This perspective dovetailed with the Progressives’ notion of an ‘evolving’ or ‘living’ government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, Progressives also coined the term ‘living Constitution,’ connoting the idea that the US Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles – a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.

“R.J. Pestritto writes that the Progressives ‘detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.’ Given their contempt for those documents, the Progressives’ mission was to progress, or move beyond, the principles laid out by the founders.”

This understood, it becomes clearer as to why Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder believe as they do about the issue of constitutionality and the authority of the US Supreme Court. It also becomes clearer as to why Mr. Obama didn’t see anything wrong with saying that, should the Justices rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection & Affordability Care Act unconstitutional, that it would be doing so as an “activist court.” Mr. Obama – and Mr. Holder, as well as all of the Obama-ites – sees the court as being activist in that scenario because it was ruling against a governmental intervention that took on what today’s Progressives see as a significant societal and economic ill.

In fact, if you examine each instance of what an overwhelming majority of Americans see as egregious encroachments into the private sector; onto our personal liberties, by the federal government under the Obama Administration, you will find that in each instance one of the paramount catalysts, aside from the Chicago politician’s need to position himself for re-election by paying back his political benefactors, is the Progressive tenet of big government – centralized federal government – interceding to affect a government-based solution to a societal and/or economic ill. Whether you consider the many pieces of legislation passed and implemented (i.e., the stimulus bill, the mortgage relief bills, Obamacare, etc.), or the brazenly anti-business regulatory efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board, or the unilateral (and unconstitutional) declaration of recess appointments by Mr. Obama, even as Congress was in session, in each instance Mr. Obama and his Progressive brethren believe that they are acting constitutionally; believing so because of the way they were taught about the philosophies used to create the total of the Charters of Freedom.

Today, Progressives – individuals who believe the Constitution in malleable to their belief system and their immediate priorities – hold critical positions in our federal government, as well as in the many State Houses. It is for this singular reason – although there are many, many others – that we should all take great pains to insist that our children be constitutionally literate; that they learn the philosophies used by our Founders and Framers in their creation of our Founding Documents and not the radical philosophies of Alinsky, Marx, Guevara, Wilson and Obama.

Of course, to ensure this requires those who heed the call to engage the educational process in the activity of curricular oversight. It also requires the support – ideologically and financially – of the true grassroots educational organizations that cry out for action. Today, so far, Conservatives have failed in both of these critical areas. Today, Progressives are winning. In fact, we are just one presidential term away from the completion of the “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

---

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.orgMr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us. 

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.5/10 (82 votes cast)
Salvato: Why Progressive Obama Believes He’s Correct, 9.5 out of 10 based on 82 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

34 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    April 6, 2012 @ 7:49 am

    The burden IS on those who would overturn congress which once it occurs will indicate once and for all the serious breach of constitutional precedence and grab for power that this administration attempted to pull off to subvert the very spirit of the constitution. Where are the large congressional majorities he speaks of? Bribes, threats, pressure and the obfuscation of 2800 pages of truth duck and dodging are what got this bill passed, now to the regret of many who got voted out of office, soon to be followed by more including its creater whose unpregnant thoughts gave birth to this economy killer, and democrat bride of Chucky, and political clone to the African doll in the democrat “Trilogy of Terror”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (41 votes cast)
    • ocollaughComment by ocollaugh
      April 6, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

      Holder’s outlook like Obama’s background documents is no hidden secret. They both came from the same Chicago like gangster club. We have known Holder’s view for a long time. We did not have to read his book to know that. Like Obama’s book, Holder’s book tells it all.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
  2. newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
    April 6, 2012 @ 9:05 am

    “David Horowitz’s impeccably thorough guide to the political Left.”

    Mr. Horowitz knows what he’s talking about too, as he use to be one of them and fortunately has moved over to our side years ago. An intelligent man with much knowledge to offer if people would only listen.

    Too bad Bill O’Reilly doesn’t listen more to Mr. Horowitz or he might learn that even with all his smarts a man can still be naivé, considering that Mr. O’Reilly is so convinced of President Obama’s good intentions.

    If the pundits are right it seems as though Obama is setting up the conservatives of the SC to demonize to the public as how we are all so unsympathetic to the plight of the poor and women — including the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it seems as though there are many that are fearful of losing their candy man and all the goodies he wants to give them because “he cares.” I’ve had as much of this as I can take and I hope and pray this guy won’t be around for another four years.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (48 votes cast)
    • gimmesometruthComment by gimmesometruth
      April 6, 2012 @ 10:41 am

      Mr. Horowitz is a very intelligent man, and knows what he’s talking about because he has the Left’s play book’s. If the Right is going to mount a serious campaign to deny Obama a second term, they had better start a grass root’s counter which takes the offensive rather than responding to progressive ‘red herring’s’. It might be advantageous for conservative leader’s to dust off, or purchase, a copy of the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu’s book, ” The Art of War”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (28 votes cast)
    • davnkatzComment by davnkatz
      April 6, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

      O’Reilly and that whole bucn are frauds. When I first started listening to them, they either claimed are hinted that they were conservative Republicans.

      About that time, I began to learn and recognize RINOs and CINOs. O and his bunch were VERY instrumental in givng us McCain (he was, you know, a moderate and all the others were just “too conservative”). Recently, in response to someone being interviewed calling O a conservative, O quickly interrupted saying, “Oh, I’m not a conservative! I’m an independent.”

      O, K Rove, Krautinhis jammers, and others of that bunch in 2010 claimed TeaParty conservatives were “unelectable because they are too conservative.” They all continue preaching that devil’s sermon – unfortunately people trust and believe them.

      Remember how that bunch panicked in 2008 when McCrum picked Sarah Palin as running mate and their poll numbers suddenly outstripped the jackasses? I have come to believe (I predicted it back then) giving us McCrud would guarantee the donkey candidate’s election.

      I believe that same bunch is tryinbg to guarantee obummer’s re-election. I have yet to hear any one of them propose a possible victory for the GOP. They do, however, actively castigate the GOP canidates suggesting that Romney is the only one with any kind of chance. So far, that has worked as people supporting more conservative candidates have lost interest.

      Did you notice how that bunch again panicked when Santorum suddenly began surging?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
  3. JDZComment by JDZ
    April 6, 2012 @ 9:18 am

    If the liberals had a perceived 5 to 4 edge in the Supreme Court, do you think Obama would have made the statement he made? Would the liberal pundits be talking about judicial activism if they had “control” in the courts? We all know that if the court had a liberal advantage he would be defending their right to determine the constitutionality of new legislation instead of challenging them. It is all political, especially this year.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (33 votes cast)
    • newsjunkyComment by newsjunky
      April 6, 2012 @ 9:30 am

      I agree with your commentary, although, I believe his anger with the Supreme Court was a mistake that he tried to walk back and couldn’t. The aggravating thing to me about this guy is that he’s good at damage control, and now he’s using this mistake to his own advantage to make points with the public.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (29 votes cast)
    • ccfontenComment by ccfonten
      April 6, 2012 @ 9:56 am

      JDZ: I think as a few other conservatives out there that the reason Obama was so angry is that Kagan or Sotomyor (SP?) leaked to Obama that the bill was going to be shot down. With Obama’s pathological (psychotic) narcissism, he is unable to handle any kind of rebuke or rejection. This is not possible in his world view of himself which is reinforced constantly by his handlers and sycophants alike. I think as time goes on further into the election season, we will all be able to witness his further unraveling as he makes more and more trips down psychosis lane. He will become more and more dangerous.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (31 votes cast)
    • geoinsdComment by geoinsd
      April 7, 2012 @ 11:03 am

      I don’t think Obama is good at damage control at all. He just get away with everything because the mainstream media generally has been giving him passes. However, I see indications that even his spell on the MSM is cracking. For example, Obama generally hasn’t gotten away with his bullying of the Supreme Court earlier this week.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  4. jdb121Comment by jdb121
    April 6, 2012 @ 9:34 am

    You would have to have a remarkable constitution for mayhem and anarchy if you really believe that the rule of the majority is the only absolute in a democratic system. The rule of the majority in politics is only just if it is informed by moral and ethical standards which underpin that rule. Herein lies the great, great divide.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (19 votes cast)
  5. peanutcardinalComment by peanutcardinal
    April 6, 2012 @ 10:02 am

    Obama points out that this legislation was passed by a majority of the democratically elected congress but seems to forget that a huge majority of the citizens that those people represented were vehemently opposed to it.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (31 votes cast)
    • ocollaughComment by ocollaugh
      April 6, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

      Seems the only majority JoBama could have referred to, was the Democrats who passed JoBamacare behind closed doors. How many numskulls can fit behind those closed doors anyway?

      Lifelong Democrat looking for an honest party.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  6. William MagginettiComment by William Magginetti
    April 6, 2012 @ 10:28 am

    Just as in the past, The government IS and always has been the problem. No government has ever solved a nations problems, governments have and will always stand in the way of solutions and progress.
    The founders of this nation knew this to be true 226 years ago and the people know it to be true today.

    Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (17 votes cast)
  7. MichaellabordeComment by Michaellaborde
    April 6, 2012 @ 11:06 am

    The difference between Obama and Hitler? The mustache.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (15 votes cast)
    • davnkatzComment by davnkatz
      April 6, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

      and skin color

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • irreverentoneComment by irreverentone
      April 7, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

      This kind of posting is detrimental to the real circumstances. It is of no concern of mine what color the Presidents skin is or whether he sports a mustache or is completely clean shaven. What does concern me, and should be of real concern to all others, is his administrations goal of transforming this country into what they believe is the reincarnation of a much better and much nicer version of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  8. libblasterComment by libblaster
    April 6, 2012 @ 11:11 am

    Because of Obama’s obvious lack of understanding of constitutional law, the students at his lectures should be inclined to throw their notes away.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  9. creeksneakersComment by creeksneakers
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

    How in world could a statement about the presumption of constituionality be arrogant? Since you don’t know much about law, let me explain to you. The presumption of constitutionality is long held doctrine of the court. The doctrine goes back to the 1827 case OGDEN v. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 213. From there is the statement:

    “It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favour of its validity, until its violation of the constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This has always been the language of this Court, when that subject has called for its decision; and I know that it expresses the honest sentiments of each and every member of this bench.”

    If anybody is out of line constitutionally its your wingnut judge who wrongfully assumed the power to order the executive branch to apologize to him for statements made during a press conference. On what authority did the judge do that?

    President Obama has always respected the power of courts to determine constitutionality. If you want to find presidents that didn’t, look up Reagan and Bush and the “unitary executive theory.”

    You’ve twisted one poorly worded statement by Obama into a disgraceful smear job.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.3/5 (13 votes cast)
    • ocollaughComment by ocollaugh
      April 6, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

      Like a true Obamanite, go ahead. Blame Bush. After all, isn’t Bush responsible for a hundred or so Obama gaffs, or even the 500 or so lies that have passed Obama’s lips, and now Holder is getting into the pathetic act. Bush is responsible. Blame Bush. It’s the right thing to do.

      Sorry Charley, but you need a new line.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
  10. poorgrandchildren.comComment by poorgrandchildren.com
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

    All (not-progressive) regressives have bought their own lie that we have a democracy. In a democracy, everyone has to march in lockstep with the best organized mob, and the best organized mob passed the Healthcare Control Act.

    Words have consequences. Call our government what it is–a republic.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (14 votes cast)
  11. Comment by Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

    If allowed progressives would eventually unravel the Constitution. Their ideology leads to chaos and tyranny in the end. Sure there are problems to be solved, but that must be done in ways that preserves our individual freedoms, rights, wealth, and property without violating the American character as nation. We are unique among nations and must remain so. Progrssives, though often well meaning would erode and subvert our absolute freedoms as embodied by the Constitution. And more often than not the need to control others is the true root of progressives.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
    • ocollaughComment by ocollaugh
      April 6, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

      Some psychiatrist’s have commented that liberals and progressives have mental blocks to reality, therefore they have a mental disability……in the vernacular, nutcases.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  12. Comment by Anonymous
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:24 pm
    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  13. Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

    Obama should be called out for the part of his statement that “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” was very misleading.
    The House of Representatives passed the bill 220 to 215 less than 51% of the House slightly above a simple majority.
    The Senate passed the bill 60 to 40 which is 60%
    Averaging the 2 together the vote was actually less than 56% of our Legislators.
    For Obama to have stated the facts correctly he should have said it was passed by a slight majority as the vote fell well short of a super majority (two thirds of Congress).
    The checks and balances that our Constitution put into place to this point have failed the people on the Health Care Bill between the Legislative and Executive Branches. It is now in the hands of the Judiciary.
    ANY COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE JUDICIARIES PLACE IN DECIDING THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION BY ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS AN AFFRONT TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
  14. PaulComment by Paul
    April 6, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

    Mr. Frank Salvato’s explanation of Progressivism is spot-on. However I disagree that Obama and Eric Holder and his Czars “really believe” that Progressivism is a better ideology than our original ideology that created our Constitution. I believe that if they really believed that they were right about their opinion of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they would have no reason to lie to Americans in order to implement their ideology. I believe that because of their education both formal and informal, their exposure to people who hate America, they have ideologies that are a mixture of Radical, Marxist, Communist, and Islamic ideologies. If Obama and his Czars really believed in what they are trying to achieve they would have no problem with “honestly” attempting to sell their ideology to Americans….after all there are already over 20+ percent of Americans who currently support them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  15. gimmesometruthComment by gimmesometruth
    April 6, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

    The Dreams of his father has turned into America’s NIGHTMARE.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  16. JMDComment by JMD
    April 6, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

    Excuse me, Mr. President, but in my high-school American History class, I learned that it is PRECISELY the function of the judicial branch to interpret the constitutionality of enacted laws. It’s part of the system of checks and balances…Or are you trying to overturn that system and become an absolute ruler? (God forbid!)

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (11 votes cast)
  17. dixon757Comment by dixon757
    April 6, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

    Beyond the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist pimping for the poor, minorities,etc, there is a back story. A major reason for big government is that it offers fertile ground and plenty of cover for dispensing favor for profit. Power to the political class is the driving force.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  18. garyComment by gary
    April 6, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

    The latest comment is on target. It would appear that the Executive branch doesn’t want checks and balances. At all. The use of executive orders and department regulaltions to establish “law” bypasses congress. The use of recess appointments when congress is still (though pro forma) in session is like the King disbanding parliament so he could just make any law he wanted. The demonizing of the opposition (referred to as “the enemy”), the Catholic Church, and anyone else who opposes the executive and czars and department heads is an old technique, known mostly to dictators and tyrants.
    I’m not saying Obama is a Nazi. I’m not saying he is a Communist. I’m not saying he is a tyrant. I am saying he uses the techniques that have been used in the past by such persons as Nero, King George III, Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, and on and on, to achieve their ends which is full control of government (and usually the military as well). This impresses me as most dangerous for all involved leading to social unrest, use of mobs and thugs, eventual revolt, armed turmoil, and government in limbo with overreaction (think about the French Revolution, from which France has yet to recover).
    I’m just old enough to remember the end of WWII and Truman. I still believe we justly, and sorrowfully, used atomic weapons to put an end to that war. America rose to the occasion of a domination of Europe and the Middle East by evil leaders, and to helping restore the shattered to better lives. I don’t believe today’s generation has any idea of what is going on, and must relive and suffer as we did at least once before.
    God help us.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  19. ocollaughComment by ocollaugh
    April 6, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

    If the liberals and progressives were half as smart as they think they are, if they really were the elite, they could see, hear and smell the danger signs, those little red flags popping up all over…..saying, “pick me, pick me.” But then they are not that smart, are they? Even a dead fish can move downstream, but it takes a live fish to swim upstream. So we have 20% dead fish to deal with?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  20. saxogramatacusComment by saxogramatacus
    April 7, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

    President Obama’s background is progressive, Marxist and Communist. He has said so. Thus it should not be surprising that Obama by-passes the Congress and denigrates S.C.O.T.U.S. However, a Marxist agenda leads to changing / gutting the Constitution and political as well as physical persecution of those who disagree. The Obama administration acts like a chapter out of the “Black Book of Communism” as of yet without the overt violence. However, in my opinion that is coming.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  21. workercl100098Comment by workercl100098
    April 8, 2012 @ 9:12 am

    Of course he believes he’s speaking the truth. It’s a proven fact in psychology that your subconscious records everything but has no moral compass. Then when you draw on the subconscious for memories, you get them all sent to you as a fact. Eventually, if you fill up your recorder with enough lies, you get lies fed back to you, without any moral judgement on their validity.

    Since we see Obama lying all the time, it’s safe to say he’s been doing this a long time. It probably also safe to say that his recorder is FULL of lies. So, he thinks everything he says is true.

    This doesn’t excuse him, it makes an even stronger case for him to have been impeached years ago. But all of our congressional representatives neglected to take their spines when they moved into their congressional offices. Therefore, they sit and play along and draw those big paychecks. The result is that we get more of the same or worse because they all do whatever Obama says.

    Get a preview of where Obama is taking America at this link:

    http://workercl100098.hubpages.com/hub/Lesser-Hell-Part-1

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  22. bigjohn555Comment by bigjohn555
    April 8, 2012 @ 10:45 am

    Progressive…Statist…
    BS!
    Socialist and/or Communist are the operative words.
    Don’t let them water everything down so that the “ignorants” among us don’t realize what they really stand for!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  23. cxComment by genesal
    April 9, 2012 @ 10:23 am

    Good link worker
    and along those lines is this article by Wayne LaPierre: executive vice president of the National Rifle Association has this warning::! 2012 Election ‘Most Dangerous in Our Lifetime’. If NObama is elected then not only America as we know it is finished, be we as a people will become literal and helpless slaves.

    The Warning Starts:

    That President Barack Obama intends to “destroy the Second Amendment” during his second term and “end our freedom forever.”

    http://rockwallconservative.me/2012/04/08/wayne-lalapierre-2012-election-most-dangerous-in-our-lifetime/

    I believe him!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Canada is full of mosques. It may be too late for them. They're like England and the Netherlands,..." Comment by Charie
    Posted in Profile, or Die
  • "Obama did not pick the acting Surgeon General--who evidently is highly qualified for the job--as "Ebola Czar", because he is..." Comment by oleteabag
    Posted in The Problem with Obama and Czars
  • "What else could one expect from the blithering idiot, Marxist, Muslim fraud who resides in in our White House?" Comment by jrp34
    Posted in The Problem with Obama and Czars

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer