How Obama's Background Directly Impacts Policy Initiatives

In order to accurately understand Barack Obama's policy initiatives, one MUST understand his background, including his frantic attempts to hide large portions of it.

This is the topic of my latest report at Conservative Examiner.

If you think that we can just sweep Obama's background under the rug and focus on his policies alone, you are sadly mistaken.  For these dangerous and de-stabilizing policies arise directly from his background...much of which was never reported to the American people in the mainstream media.

And there is a very good reason why the Obama people made sure none of this was known.

Obama's Dangerous Nuclear Policy

Perhaps never before in the history of the United States have we been this vulnerable to attack, except this time, nuclear attack.  And this is due solely to a new policy just implemented by Barack Obama.

The man is not only dangerous but just plain NUTS.  The new policy in a nutshell?  If the U.S. is attacked by a nuclear, biological, chemical, or conventional weapon, Obama WILL NOT USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO RESPOND, EVER!

This is tantamount to inviting every rogue nation on earth, including terrorists, to 'come get us! We are disarmed!'

One of the reasons Ronald Reagan was so successful at dismantling the Soviet menace at the end of the Cold War was his standing policy that if anyone, anywhere attacked the U.S., we would blow their sorry asses off the map.

But now, America has elected a panty-waste, a pacifist, a flower-child, a wussy.  Heaven help us.

Conservative Tom Coburn, R-OK, Makes Strange Remarks about Pelosi, Fox News, Tea Parties

I picked up on this story while on Twitter last evening, and I have to admit I was rather taken aback.  U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, who is usually a powerful voice for conservatism in the Senate, made some rather unusual remarks about Nancy Pelosi, Fox News, and the Tea Parties.

Mike McCarville out in Oklahoma also noted the story, and posted a link.

If Coburn's objective was to tone down the rhetoric a bit, perhaps his remarks are understandable to a degree.  That being said, it is a much better strategy to acknowledge the outrage, the deep and powerful emotion, that is boiling across America.  When angry people feel they are being squelched or forced to swallow their overwhelming emotions, then eventually like a pressure cooker that lacks ventilation, the thing will experience a violent explosion.

Americans need to give voice to their anger.  This may well prevent violence.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 4/7/2010

Focusing on guns, politics and news of interest regarding firearms rights, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Western Rifle Shooters Association reports that the collectivists in government and the mainstream media are already beginning to soil themselves over the upcoming Restore the Constitution/Firearms Rally on the Potomac April 19. 

Vanderboegh has more on the April 19 rally.  This is going to be, as he says, 'A No-Shit, Freedom Work' that is 'no place for babies.'  

David Codrea notes that in these days of government-controlled healthcare and social engineering, doctors are encouraged to give patients advice on gun safety...and that means asking if they own guns.  Interesting that this is now a 'public health issue.'  Fascists and Marxists would be proud.

Kurt Hofmann says that the Leftwing and the 'moderates' are now smearing Tea Party activists as 'stupid people with guns.'  Not nearly as STUPID as the Leftists, the RINOS, the Mods, and the collectivists endorsed by the NRA simply because they claim to be 'pro-gun' while at the same time attacking every single principle of liberty in the Constitution!

Conservative Libertarian Outpost asks, 'Is the Imposter in Chief a Cowboy?'

Days of our Trailers observes that one of the former 'only ones' has posted an editorial in support of the Chicago Gun Ban.

Brigid blogs on what it's like to be a single female in a hotel room in that bastion of armed criminals and unarmed citizens, otherwise known as 'Chicago.'

Insight on Freedom says that Obama has essentially 'flipped the bird' at citizens and lays out what conservatives plan to do about it.

Say Uncle posts some linky goodness to some gun porn.

Robb Allen highlights the key question a person must ask if they purchase a gun for personal self-defense.

Standing By writes about 'Parting Company.'

Tam points to a story about some New Yorkers who got busted for what mainstream media types referred to as 'an arsenal.'

Way Up North provides some comic relief with a yarn about an old priest who was dying in a hospital.  Political types will enjoy it...well if you are a conservative political type.

Roberta X notes one of the things we have lost in America since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Since I remember the 1960s very well, along with the years afterward, I can say without any doubt whatsoever that violent crime increased dramatically AFTER this gun control measure passed.

Dustin's Gun Blog reports that the Arizona Firearms Freedom Act was passed into law.

Why Eugene Volokh is Wrong on My Story Concerning Bogus Claims on Obama Resume

Law professor Eugene Volokh takes issue with my column at the Examiner earlier in the week which exposed some rather bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume.

I was taken aback, to be frank, by the vehemence with which Volokh attempted to discredit my article.  That being said, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, provided it is understood that it is opinion.

So often in politics that which is more appropriately described as opinion is passed off as fact.  I am certainly not above falling into that trap, and I believe that Professor Volokh has done so in this case.

Here are some excerpts from his post at The Volokh Conspiracy, which is linked above, along with my commentary on why I maintain he is wrong.  My responses to his assertions are in bold letters.

[UPDATE: I just received a message from the Content Manager for Right Side News, which had posted the article I cite below, saying that the article has been removed (I’ve updated the link below to point to the Google-cached version). The message explained that, “After reading the article written that addressed the errors in an editorial post on Right Side News, we pulled the article and will not publish that author’s material again. This URL is now inactive ... Just wanted to say thank you, sir ....” Very glad to hear it! I should note, though, that some of the errors below remain present either in places that the original article cited, or in places that now cite the article.]

I never requested that Right Side News publish my article on their site.  I did not mind that they did so, given they provided full credit and a link, but this was not my doing.  The curious part of this is that they took  the article down after it had been up on their site for at least 24 hours, citing 'content concerns.'  Interesting that these concerns did not prevent them from posting the article to begin with.  And why Professor Volokh would be 'very glad to hear' that my work had been deleted from the site is also very curious.  The fact that he disagrees with some of my assertions is one thing, but I believe this response is way over the top.   

[FURTHER UPDATE: The Blogging Professor has also taken down the post that Right Side News originally linked to.]

The Blogging Professor used at least one of the same sources I used for this story.  He issued an explanation and a clarification about that source, not a retraction.  This source has nothing to do with my article itself, although the source is cited in my article, along with several others.

A couple of people e-mailed me this story, which is apparently making the rounds in some conservative circles. I wanted to warn people away from this; it’s a mixture of error, unsupported rumor and speculation, linguistic gamesmanship, and innuendo suggesting some malfeasance in what is actually perfectly normal behavior. It’s wrong to fall for it and to recommend it to others. And it’s also counterproductive: it undermines your credibility for the actual substantive arguments that should be made against the Administration’s policies. (For me, it’s enough that it’s wrong; but I mention the counterproductiveness as an extra incentive.)

I have repeatedly, consistently, relentlessly, and tirelessly engaged in daily critiques of the Obama Administration's policies.  It is WRONG to insinuate that since I reported problems with Obama's background that this somehow shows I have not adequately opposed the Administration on the merits of its policies.  News is news.  And these allegations concerning Obama's background have NOT been given one ounce of consideration in the mainstream media.  Balance is sorely needed.  That is one of my objectives. 

Let’s look at some items:

According to a special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’ the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a ‘constitutional professor and scholar,’ and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

1. President Obama’s serving as an editor of the Harvard Law Review is amply documented in publications — including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe — from the early 1990s, including when Obama was still a student. Nor would it have been an easy hoax to pull off then, since the board contained many dozens of people, including many conservatives, all of whom could have blown the whistle had the allegation been false.
Just to satisfy the super-skeptical, I personally confirmed this with Paul Clement, who was a year behind Obama (and was therefore on the board with Obama the year that Obama was the Law Review’s President), who was Solicitor General of the United States from 2005 to 2008, who is a very solid conservative, and whom I know from when we were clerking. And you can also see Obama’s name of the board member listings at, for instance, p. 128 of volume 104 of the Harvard Law Review (though, in keeping with Harvard Law Review practice, that listing doesn’t include the titles of the various members).

Obama's title was 'President of the Harvard Law Review' and not 'Editor.'  What did Obama publish in the Review as Editor? An Editor is required to publish.

2. The “special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’” which supposedly shows that “the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama,” is actually a quote of a blog post based on an interview with “the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law.” Who that is, I don’t know; the source was anonymous, and it’s not clear to me what “the highest tenured faculty member” even means. But in any event, the uncorroborated views of one anonymous source about the supposed attitudes of his colleagues do not make for particularly persuasive proof.

Anonymous sources are regularly used by journalists.  And this is 'wrong' how?  Anonymous sources brought down the Nixon Administration.  We never discovered who 'Deep Throat' was until just recently, although the Watergate Scandal occurred in 1972.

3. The quotation marks around “constitutional professor and scholar” — in an article about supposed “bogus claims on [the] Obama resume” — seem to suggest that the article is quoting some claim of Obama’s or the Administration’s that he was indeed a “constitutional professor and scholar.” My quick searches revealed that Obama has indeed been described at times as a constitutional scholar by others, in contexts where “scholar” seems to just mean “one who has profound knowledge of [the Constitution]” and not “someone who has written scholarship on the subject.” If you want to point out that Obama isn’t a scholar in the sense of having written scholarship on the matter, or that you think his knowledge of the Constitution is weak (as opposed to that you think his views on the Constitution are wrong, a very separate matter), that’s fine. But absent some claim on his or his authorized agents’ part that he’s a constitutional scholar in the “written scholarship” sense, don’t include the claim that he is a “constitutional professor and scholar” as a “bogus claim[] on [the] Obama resume.”

According to a news story in the Chicago Sun-Times in 2008, the Chicago Law School confirmed that Barack Obama DID NOT hold the title of law professor at the school.  This is from a statement made by the law school itself, no matter what redactions they may have made since 2008.

As to the claim that it’s somehow bogus for Obama or his staff to claim that he’s a “professor,” because his title was actually “Senior Lecturer,” Orin addressed this well in July, but the short answer is that “professor” is a commonly used way of referring to university and graduate school teachers, regardless of their titles. If at some point he wrote on his actual resume, or similar document, that he held the title “Professor of Law,” that would be wrong. But that he is casually referred to as “professor,” or refers to himself this way, is quite normal.

Actually these terms do matter and they mean something.  Professor Volokh would have us believe that the terms 'instructor' or 'adjunct professor' or 'associate professor' or 'professor' are bandied about interchangeably in academic circles.  This was certainly not the case in my educational career, which is significant.  I hold a 90-hour Master's degree, plus several years in post-graduate work in several institutions.  Invariably students were careful to refer to only full professors and associate professor as 'Professor.'  Adjunct Professors were called 'Doctor' if they held that degree, and 'Mister' or 'Ms.' if they did not.  This went for Instructors as well.  This is only right and courteous, given that full Professors and Associates have significantly more education and training than most others on a faculty.  We never wished to insult our Professors by lumping less qualified 'instructors' in with the mix. Titles matter in academia.  And if we are going to 'get it right' as Professor Volokh claims we should do regarding my article, then that should apply to using the correct title when addressing faculty members.

I will agree with Volokh on one thing--this is all the time I wish to spend on this issue.  He had his say, and now I have had mine.

Obama the Invisible Student at Columbia University?

In order to truly comprehend the end-game of Obama's policy initiatives, one must understand something about his background, and questions continue to swirl, this time revolving around his days supposedly as a student at Columbia University.

A thorough analysis of this issue is available at Conservative Examiner.

Interestingly, no one remembers Obama at Columbia with the exception of a very few, not even the head of the Political Science Department where Obama would have taken most of his courses.

He was also notorious for not attending any classes.  So, what was he doing and why?

White House to Media--'Don't Report What You Discover'

Curiously, in light of recent revelations concerning fraudulent statements on Barack Obama's resume, the White House has sought to 'cut a deal' with journalists to prevent them from reporting 'certain things they may learn.'

Read about this outrageous behavior at Conservative Examiner.

What, exactly, is the White House so desperately attempting to keep secret by granting reporters unprecedented access to the President?

Second Amendment News Roundup for 4/5/2010

Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest related to firearms rights, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Western Rifle Shooters Association points to an article that perfectly depicts why the 'pragmatists' are wrong and are largely responsible for the current mess we're in.  Collaboration and negotiation with Marxists who are intent on destroying individual freedoms WILL result in the loss of your gun rights eventually.  Remember when 'pragmatists' endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand in New York?  No sooner had she been elected than she was spouting the party line on guns and everything else along with 'Little Chucky' Schumer.  This stuff has gotten us NO WHERE in a hurry, and since the NRA endorses liberal Democrats, I am through with them as well.

Vanderboegh provides sobering reading entitled, 'Will America Break Up?'

David Codrea notes more evidence that gun control does nothing to curb violence and crime.

Kurt Hofmann has a primer concerning defensive handgun carry in Illinois.  Yes, we need to pay attention to what's going on in the various states.  In one way or another those laws impact ALL of us down the road.

Conservative Libertarian Outpost shows that just because one is a member of the NRA does NOT mean they actually support gun owners.  An example from Wyoming is a case in point.

Brigid has an excellent read entitled, 'Delicate Balances.'

MOWCA posts an informative read on 'The Founders vs. Alinksy.'

Pax Parabellum notes an important anniversary that directly impacts concealed carry in restaurants.

Tam says that Michael Bane has some thoughts on the gun culture and where it's headed.

Way Up North reports there is a controversy brewing about pipelines and bullets in Alaska.

VIDEO: Is the President of the United States a Fraud?

The latest edition of The Liberty Sphere Report is now available on YouTube and focuses on the issues raised in yesterday's Examiner column concerning Barack Obama's fraudulent statements about his educational and work history.

Both the video and commentary can be found at Conservative Examiner.

More information on this explosive issue will be forthcoming. 

Easter Greetings

Happy Easter to all.

May the renewed hope that arises from the knowledge that new life arises from the darkness of death, and that the One who conquered death itself still lives, forever be our motivation and inspiration to press onward in the battle for truth, honor, liberty, justice, and love.

Blessings to each of you.

Investigation Reveals Numerous Bogus Claims on Obama Resume

New and disturbing information has been revealed from verified sources indicating that Barack Obama made fraudulent claims about his background and educational qualifications.

Sources at the Chicago Law School reveal that he was never a 'professor of law' or a 'Constitutional scholar,' as he has claimed on numerous occasions.  Rather, he was a non-tenure-track 'instructor,' which in academic circles is below the status of Associate Professor.  Instructors do not need the educational qualifications of an Associate Professor or full Professor.

Conservative Examiner has the complete story.

As more investigators delve into the history of Barack Obama the more it is becoming apparent that the President of the United States is a fraud.

The Vanderboegh-MOWCA Debate on Tactics

The continuing debate between patriots Mike Vanderboegh and Paul Davis at MOWCA is quickly taking center stage among those who are deeply concerned with finding the best method to defeat the big government oppressors who now control Washington.

MOWCA today issues a statement concerning the fact that we now appear to be flat out of time when it comes to a long-range, sustained containment of Marxism.  Neo-Marxists who are now embedded firmly in our government are at least 75% of the way toward meeting their ominous goals.

Vanderboegh, on the other hand, maintains that the only way to beat Marxist Alinskyites is with Alinsky's methods.

Regardless of where you happen to land in this debate, this is interesting, informative reading and something which MUST be considered, given the dire circumstances we face in America.

Vanderboegh Responds to MOWCA

Yesterday I posted the latest entry from the MOWCA blog on the tactics advocated by our friend and Patriot, Mike Vanderboegh.  (And by the way, Paul Davis at MOWCA is also a friend and Patriot).

Here Vanderboegh offers a reply.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Smears 2nd Amendment March

If you are a faithful reader of The Liberty Sphere and other pro-gun blogs, then you know about the upcoming Second Amendment March on April 19 on the banks of the Potomac in Washington, DC.

But as David Codrea reports, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who of course is no friend of conservatives or any individual right for that matter, is smearing the march and its participants.

My theory as to the motive is that in one accord this week, the Left launched a carefully crafted, concerted smear campaign against ALL conservatives and libertarians, accusing them of being violent, teabagging, racist, treasonous subversives who are all members of militias that at any moment may haul off and blow up Washington.

Obama himself joined in the smear.

We can expect this as the tactic of the tyrants who have invaded our government from here on in.  ANYONE who dares criticize 'the Chosen One' is to branded as a dangerous extremist, when in actuality Marxists have murdered more people in the world than ANY ONE ELSE in history!

ALERT! One of the Arrested Militia Members Is A Registered Democrat

The infamous, Leftwing subversive group 'The Southern Poverty Law Center' enjoys attempting to link militia groups to the Tea Party in particular and conservatives in general.  The state-run 'mainstream media' can be counted on to pick up SPLC's smears of conservatives each and every time it is reported that threats against politicians were made by some kooky militia group whose members are off their rockers.

But, as Newsbusters reports today, SPLC is going to have a tougher time of it attempting to sell that load of B.S. to the public.

It turns out one of the members of the small group called 'Hutaree' is a registered liberal Democrat:

The Blade, a newspaper in Toledo, Ohio reported today,

Most of the indicted militia members accused of being anti-government extremists have active voting records, a check with area voter registration offices showed yesterday.

One is a registered Democrat, and the party affiliations of the rest could not be determined.

Jacob J. Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio, voted as a Democrat in the 2004 and 2008 primary elections. He also voted in 10 other elections since 2000. Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which party's ballot they requested in the most recent primary election.

Wonder how long it will take for Couric, Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann, Sawyer, and Williams to report THIS!!?? 

Obama Smears Critics, Opponents

Obama is kicking up his smear of critics into high gear.

Read all about it at Conservative Examiner.


Thus, the thin-skinned sensitivity of Barack Obama is on display once again.

Giving a Nod to the Significance of the Day

Readers of The Liberty Sphere include persons from all backgrounds, including Jews, atheists, agnostics, Christian, the deeply religious, and the not-so-religious.  Some are even anti-religion.

We are all united, however, around a few core principles:  maximum individual liberty, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution as the final rule of law in this nation, free enterprise, low taxes, small government, and a strong national defense.

Thus, I rarely write about religious issues from a personal point of view, except on rare occasions.

This is one of those occasions, but I will be brief.

Today is a significant day in the Christian Faith--Good Friday.  This is the day that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross by the Roman government.  It is called 'Good Friday' because Christians widely believe that in dying, Jesus bore our sins, paid our debts, and paved our way to eternal life in heaven.

This is my faith and testament as well.

I only ask for respect for the views of those of us who hold this day dear.

And a belated 'Happy Passover' goes to my Jewish friends and readers! 

"Feckless Weasels"

If it's Friday and you visit The Liberty Sphere, you know that in all likelihood there will be a link somewhere to the funniest political cartoon editorials on 'algore's Internets.'

This segment is aptly named 'Feckless Weasels" by the blogger who posts them, The Ol' Broad. 

Simply click on the link and have yourself a good laugh to begin your weekend.  You won't be sorry.

The State-Run Media Spin Machine and our Core Values

The latest threat the FBI is investigating revolves around a letter that was sent to around 30 Governors across the country.  The FBI contends that it was probably sent by an 'extremist' group, although the letter was sent to some solid conservative Governors, such as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal.

I highly doubt that true Patriots would target Jindal.

Texas Fred does a good job at reporting the facts on this case, the high probability that the lamestream state-run media will use it to smear the Tea Parties, and the core values that Tea Party groups share in common. This is an excellent read you will not want to miss. 

MOWCA vs. Vanderboegh--'Accepting our Chains'

Paul Davis over at the MOWCA Blog provides a thoughtful response to Mike Vanderboegh's latest suggestion concerning the response of Patriots to tyranny.

Be sure to read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt:

...the real reality here is this is recipe for ACCEPTING the shackles and chains that are swiftly coming upon us. Please remember there is a significant difference between OPPOSING a system, and PREVENTING or OVERTHROWING a system.

You can oppose a system all life long – AND NEVER, NEVER OVERTURN IT! No, what you become is the worst of traitors and hypocrites. Mike talks about the “moral high ground.” Well, this ain’t it. But there again, if fictional characters are your sources, I guess you can do whatever you want — and it works — at least on paper.

However, it will not prevent the coming tyranny. Rather, it will assist its emplacement and entrenchment — guaranteeing slavery for our sons and daughters. Of course, you could convince them to oppose the system from within too — but they would still be slaves living under tyranny.

And you will have compromised everything you said you stood for . . .
You know, the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” doesn’t discriminate.

Our Founding Fathers would shudder:

10th Amendment Misperceptions

I am all for the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The amendment is intended to prevent the federal government from encroaching on the rights of the states.

There are, however, limitations.  States, for example, cannot legally restrict free speech.  The Bill of Rights is intended to override any so-called 'local authority' that would trample on the rights of the people.  Local and state governments can be just as oppressive as the Feds.

And here is where those such as the 'Romneyites' go wrong.  The 10th Amendment is being used to justify government oppression by a state government rather than the Federal government.  So, what good is a Bill of Rights if the 10th Amendment allows state governments to trample on the general principles of liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and other precepts embodied in the Constitution?

The thing that Romneyites also fail to consider is that several of the original states had their own Bill of Rights PRIOR to the adoption of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.  Thus, states were ALSO prohibited from encroaching upon certain rights of the individual--the primary one being that INDIVIDUALS have the right to live out their lives relatively free from government intrusion.

For a state government, such as Massachusetts with 'RomneyCare,' to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance is one of the most personal encroachments upon freedom that can exist, simply because it deals with a sacred aspect of human life--health and the private records of one's health.

And frankly, the Court that upheld RomneyCare as 'constitutional' is flat wrong as is so often the case with today's courts that give scant regard to the original intent of the Founders.

So, NO!  The 10th Amendment does NOT give states unlimited powers.  THE INDIVIDUAL in the American system of government is the ultimate authority, not government itself of ANY kind--local, state, or federal.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 4/1/2010

Focusing on guns, politics and news of interest pertaining to firearms rights, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Kurt Hofmann says that if 'gun-free zones' are too expensive, there is another alternative.

Free in Idaho blogs on the semi and full-auto shooting match, sponsored by Idaho Automatic Weapons Collectors Association.

Insight on Freedom reminds us to 'remember in November.'

Say Uncle has a link to some 'chics and guns.'

Nicki posts 'a thought on gun control.'

David Codrea provides a rather interesting picture from the ATF and says that 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'  Take a look.

Way Up North notes the specific definition of a 'militia' according to the U.S. Code.  Read it!

The Real Gun Guys provide the highly informative 'how to reload ammunition.'

Of Arms and the Law presents the protections to gunowners who travel as contained in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Bloviating Zeppelin draws a line in the sand in response to a visitor in the comment section of his blog that accused him of being a violent extremist who calls for the killing of cops.  Naturally, nothing could be further from the truth, but the way the Leftwing is framing the debate these days, this is the consequence.  It seems all you have to do to be a racist, cop-killing, neanderthal is to merely criticize Obama.

Democrats Claim They Face Violence at Home During Easter Break

Gee, and I thought we extremist, rightwing, allegedly homegrown terrorist, violence-prone, nutcases were the 'paranoid ones.'

But, as Conservative Libertarian Outpost points out, paranoia seems to have infected the ranks of Democrats who must face their constituents back home, most of whom are angry...but not violent.

Liberty Forum Features Tom Baugh and 'Starving the Monkeys'

WRSA has the links.

Be sure to watch ALL of the videos of the forum.  Some are not for the faint of heart, but citizens need to be aware of the critical situation we face.

2 Must-Reads from Mike

Vanderboegh has 2 items today that MUST be read!

First, there will be intensifying defiance among Patriots not only because of ObamaCare but the coming Marxist cap-and-trade bill and the naturalization of illegal aliens.


Second, the wonderful Monica Crowley, Fox News contributor, writer, commentator, tells it like it is about Democrats and the Obamanoids--they HATE God-fearing Americans and consider them to be ENEMIES OF THE STATE.

As I often say, folks, buckle up your seatbelts tight, for we are embarking on a VERY bumpy ride very soon.

VIDEO: No Retreat on Opposition to ObamaCare

A few within the GOP still don't get it.  Democrats are running scared, hiding from the public as they return home to their districts during the Easter break.  But a few Republicans seem to want to back off from the opposition to ObamaCare, or at least the move to repeal it.

This article and the video posted at the end at Conservative Examiner shows why wavering in our opposition to ObamaCare is a colossal mistake.

We now have the Marxists on the run.  We need to increase the pressure against them.