Category Archives: Law

Rising to the level of a dictatorship

You need to listen to this.

How far will his lawlessness go? Obama closed the White House to anyone but his own visitors a long time ago and he seems to be made of Teflon whenever it comes to any of dozens, yes, DOZENS, of scandals that make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

Harry Reid totally ignores any bill the House passed that Obama doesn’t want to come to a vote. Moderate Republicans keep bending over and doing whatever Obamacrats want while Conservatives and Tea Partiers are blamed unjustly and targeted illegally.

I will be totally unsurprised if the 2016 election is canceled and Obama is declared President for life. It happened in Germany. It happened in Cuba. It happened in Venezuela. Given what we’ve seen happen already, I can’t find any reason to suppose it can’t or won’t happen here.


One correction to Judge Jeanine … Barack Obama is not a lawyer. He went to law school; he USED to be a lawyer. But he is not licensed to practice anywhere NOW. Ergo, he is not a lawyer.

And while he claims to have been a “constitutional law professor”, he doesn’t appear to have ever taught actual Constitutional Law. What he did teach (and this is according to a friendly article in the New York Times) were three courses about race, racism and … oh right … more racism.

Obama course on Racism and the Law


Comments Off on Rising to the level of a dictatorship

Filed under Barack Obama, Constitution, Government Corruption, Government Tyranny, Harry Reid, Judge Jeanine, Law, Race Relations

Government by Unelected Regulatory Jackboots

United States Senator Mike Lee posted this. If it doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of you, then you haven’t got any bejeebers left.

2014_01 Govt by unelected regulatory jackboots



Filed under Law, U.S. Congress

A few thoughts on Gun Control

Tweeted @ @marklevinshow:

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in Country. This year 446 school age children have been shot and 62 killed in Chicago!

Special kind of stupid

Tweeted @WilliamTeach:

Weird how Dems weren’t calling for gun control when Islamist went on a rampage at Ft. Hood

Liberal Second Amendment

The following is excerpted from by Charles C.W. Cooke:

Anybody who bothers to look up 1857′s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision will notice right away the court’s awful observation that if slaves were permitted to enjoy full citizenship rights, then they would — shock horror! — enjoy the right

“to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

This, the court thought, would be disastrous.

Gun control is racist

The fear of blacks with guns is not, of course, new. The very first gun-control measures in American history were designed to keep arms out of the hands of blacks and Indians:

The Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies both prohibited the sale of guns to Indians in the early seventeenth century, and the “Black Codes” of the mid-eighteenth century required French colonists in Louisiana to disarm and beat “any black carrying any potential weapon.”

Many pre-Civil War state constitutions went further, reserving the right to bear arms … to “freemen,” which, naturally, meant whites. After their damnable cause was lost, the KKK picked up and ran with disarmament as a way of keeping blacks down.

As Adam Winkler has observed, “gun control” was “at the very top of its agenda.” The Democratic party’s “Black Codes,” which barred former slaves from owning guns in the (segregated) post-bellum South, were passed for the same purpose.

It is no accident that the first draft of the 1871 Anti-Klan Act contained a provision that made it a federal crime to

“deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property,”

for that was exactly what segregationists set out to do.

Robert Franklin Williams’s classic work, Negroes with Guns, tells a tale of the KKK’s systematic attempt to disarm black Americans — and of the National Rifle Association’s work in forming a counter-group called the “Black Armed Guard” — as late as the as the 1950s.

As Williams points out, it was guns in the hands of his family that saved their lives and allowed them — literally — to fight the KKK and their allies.


Filed under Constitution, Crime, Fort Hood Massacre, Government Tyranny, Gun Control, KKK, Law, Liberty, Race Relations, Second Amendment, Supreme Court

Law Enforcement

Childhood dreamsNavy Seals didn't kill bin Laden

Hey Bryan Officer Bradshaw here

You don't have to give up your car

Liver Failure

Harvested @ Law Enforcement WTF Moments facebook

Comments Off on Law Enforcement

Filed under Armed Forces, Funny Stuff, Gun Control, Law

Thursday Open Thread


Filed under Economy, Law

The “Missing Pete” Open Thread

New York has a new law I actually support!

Got this from Senator Seward:

August inaugurates the new “ALL-CRIMES DNA LAW,” which will dramatically strengthen and expand New York State’s crime-fighting DNA database, is now in effect.

Under the new law, which I was proud to support in the senate, thousands of additional criminals will have to submit a DNA sample upon their conviction.  This will provide police officers and district attorneys with the additional tools they need to help solve hundreds of unsolved “cold-cases,” while also preventing thousands of future crimes from occurring.

In particular, this landmark criminal justice reform will assist our law enforcement professionals in tracking down and punishing rapists and sexual predators — getting them off the streets and putting them behind bars where they belong.

1 Comment

Filed under Crime, Law

You NEED to SEE this!

This is not Tinfoil Hat conspiracy theory stuff or Right Wingnut agitprop.

The videos are from a July 27, 2012 press conference sponsored by a United States Senator and made by sworn federal agents.

In short … the Obama Administration has ORDERED immigration officers to RELEASE illegal aliens if they simply SAY “I have a GED” or “I am a DREAMer.” This includes child molesters, rapists, drug dealers … you name it. If someone is a citizen, they get prosecuted. If they’re ILLEGALS, they get RELEASED.

Please. Watch. Listen. Link. Forward.

Americans need to understand what this administration is really doing!

Agents Face Threat Of Pink Slips If They Enforce The Law [6:23]

Top Immigration Officials Describe Border Chaos [3:48]

On June 15, 2012, Obama ordered law enforcement officials to release, without question, proof or evidence, ANY illegal who says he or she has a GED or is a DREAMer. Nation of laws? Not under this president!




Filed under Barack Obama, Crime, Immigration, Law

Some good news for our side

I just finished scoping out four opinion polls about the HHS mandate that date from February, March, May and June of this year. For those who want it, the data and URLs are provided below. But first, here are my thoughts.

A May poll of Adult Americans showed a very high degree of passion and support for freedom of religion above all else. It’s very rare to get a ZERO in the Meh crowd. [Meh = Don’t Know, No Opinion, It Depends.] But that’s what this poll found when they asked,

“Should freedom of religion be protected, even if it conflicts with other laws?”

26% No vs. 74% Yes vs. 0% Meh.

Clearly, as a nation, we really care about religious freedom. I have seen this 1:3 split in other polls on hot issues, including in another question from that same May poll.

“Is it morally wrong to force health care workers and doctors to provide abortion when they object for religious reasons?”

27% No vs. 72% Yes vs. 1% Meh.

I believe the 1:3 reflects the Hard-Left vs. Center-Right divide in America today. The Democrat Media Complex blats about how they are the majority and we are the extremist fringey tinfoil hatters. But the real truth is the opposite.

This is something to keep in mind when talking to those critical Undecided voters. The Hard-Leftists are already committed to the Democrats, so the likelihood that an Undecided is fundamentally Center-Right on most issues is very, very high. Find their hot buttons and focus on how Obama Democrats have violated those core values.

I saw another phenomenon in the May poll that I’ve seen before. Despite 74% of these same people saying they supported freedom of religion above all else, when the questions got specific about birth control, abortion, etc., support for the primacy of religious freedom dropped to between 51% and 58%.

But it shouldn’t have mattered whether the question was “Does religious freedom trump everything?” or “Does religious freedom trump this, that or the other thing?” Everything should mean everything, right? Except apparently it didn’t for about one-third of the people who said it did.

I see the same disconnect in presidential approval polls. When the question is “Do you approve of the job Obama is doing?”, the numbers are always higher than they are for subordinate issues, like “Do you approve of the job Obama is doing on the economy?” or “the war in Afghanistan?” etc.

The best explanation I can come up with is that people weenie out on reporting their real opinions when there is a hot button issue in the question. The Democrat Media Complex hounds us with certain messages about what it means to be a “good” person. Like, “If you don’t like Barack Obama, you’re a dirty RAAAAACIST!!!” And “If you don’t support birth control, you HATE WOMEN!!!” So the poll questions that include a culturally-charged anxiety trigger get a less honest answer than one that homes in on a core value.

It could be the other way around. I.e., that these people are all for religious freedom as long as it doesn’t interfere with them getting free stuff. I hope not. Freedom of religion is the reason many of us (or our ancestors) left everything familiar to come here. I think we’re more attached to it than the Left realizes.

If I’m right, then the higher number in the straight-up “religious freedom is primary” question is the accurate number while the lower numbers that are attached to culturally-charged anxiety triggers are less accurate. I guess we’ll find out in November when voters are not answering a live pollster … “What will she think of me?!” … but casting secret ballots that will help decide the fate of the nation.

The March poll provides support for my thesis. It asked twice about forcing health insurance plans to provide free birth control, once for just anybody and then again for groups that have moral or religious objections to birth control. Where the question was purely secular, opposition to mandatory free birth control was 51%. But when they mentioned religious or moral objections in the question, opposition increased by 6 points. And notice in the June poll that the HHS mandate issue ALONE has resulted in a 13% to 16% shift toward opposition to Obama!

I think the lesson for us is clear.

When we’re talking with those critical Undecideds who will swing this close race for or against us, we should couch the discussions in terms of CORE values.

“It’s not about birth control. It’s about keeping the government from forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.”

“This is not about race. We elected a black man to our highest office. We’ve proven we aren’t a racist nation anymore. Now we need to ask if he has fixed the economy and gotten people back to work like he said he would.”

One final point … I’m interested in how well our messaging is getting past the alphabet media blockade, so I snooped through the data to see if I could see any signs that there’s been a shift in opinion over the five months these polls tracked. I think there has been and it’s to our side.

Three polls asked variations on the generic question: Should health insurance plans be required to provide free birth control? The February poll showed 43% of Likely Voters opposed, but the March and May polls both showed 51% of Adult Americans opposed. Since Likely Voters generally poll more Center-Right than Adult Americans, the actual shift toward support for religious freedom may have been even higher than 8%. And it’s held up against the Left’s onslaughts.

Thank God for the First Amendment, talk radio, the internet and our church pulpits!

A Survey of recent opinion polls re: The HHS Mandate

February 2012 (Likely Voters)

Should health insurance companies be required by law to provide free …

… Contraception: 43% No.

… Morning after pills: 50% No.

March 2012 (Adult Americans)

Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?

Plans offered by secular institutions: 40% Must cover vs. 51% Opt out vs. 9% Meh.

Plans offered by religious institutions: 36% Must cover vs. 57% Opt out vs. 7% Meh.

CtH: The second “Opt out” is 6% higher and the Meh is 2% lower. Another sign that we have a special place in our hearts for protecting religious freedom.

May 2012 (Adult Americans)

Should freedom of religion be protected, even if it conflicts with other laws?

Adults: 74% Yes vs. 26% No vs. 0% Meh.

Is it morally wrong to force health care workers and doctors to provide abortion when they object for religious reasons?

Adults: 72% Yes vs. 27% No vs. 1% Meh.

Should individual health care providers and organizations providing health insurance policies be allowed to opt out of providing …

Abortion: 58% Yes vs. 38% No vs. 4% Meh

Birth control pills: 51% Yes vs. 46% No vs. 3% Meh

Abortion-inducing drugs: 51% Yes vs. 44% No vs. 5% Meh

Medication to speed the death of a terminally ill patient: 55% Yes vs. 41% No vs. 4% Meh

In vitro fertilization treatments that could result in the death of an embryo: 52% Yes vs. 41% No vs. 7% Meh

Do you believe …

… Contraception is morally acceptable? 88% Yes.

… Abortion is wrong in an of itself? 58% Yes.

June 2012 (Registered Voters)

Is providing free birth control worthy of federal concern?

Catholics: 57% No vs. 37% Yes.

Women: 44% No vs. 51% Yes.

Does the federal government have the right to force morally objectionable coverage on religious institutions?

Women: 57% No.

Should birth control be treated like any other drug, without mandatory coverage?

Catholics: 67% Yes. Women 63% Yes.

Will the HHS mandate make you less likely to vote for Obama, more likely to vote for Obama, or have no impact on your vote?

Religiously active white females: 38% Less Likely vs. 12% More Likely. (38 – 12 = 16 away from Obama)

Catholics: 29% Less Likely vs. 13% More Likely. (29 – 13 = 16 away from Obama)

Independents: 28% Less Likely vs. 15% More Likely. (28 – 15 = 13 away from Obama)


February poll of Likely Voters by Rasmussen reported @

March poll of Adult Americans by New York Times/CBS News reported @

May poll of Adult Americans by Marist College commissioned by the Knights of Columbus reported @

June poll of Registered Voters by QEV Analytics commissioned by The Catholic Association reported @


Filed under Abortion, Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Elections, First Amendment, HHS, Law, Media Bias, Obamacare, Polls, Race Relations, Religious Liberty, Unemployment

BHO cuts AZ from the herd

Click on graphics to embiggen.

The Obama Administration has been spinning the Arizona SCOTUS case as a question of state vs. federal jurisdictions. But clearly it was never anything of the kind. Arizona never tried to make any state laws that contradicted federal laws. They tried to make state laws that would allow them to enforce federal laws that federal officials were not enforcing.

Now that the Supreme Court has unanimously supported Arizona’s right to do this, the Obama administration is doubling down on the whole not-enforcing-the-law thing. Basically, it’s a giant neener neener from the Obama White House to the Supreme Court, the governor, legislators and citizens of Arizona, all of whom overwhelming supported the law.

The Obama Administration treats North Korea and Iran better than this.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

I like the “overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution” part.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

The law that Obama the “Constitutional Scholar” declared “Poorly Conceived” is the one the Supreme Court just unanimously upheld.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

If you like this, you might also enjoy @

H/t to Pete for source @


Filed under Barack Obama, Constitution, Immigration, IRS, Law, Supreme Court

Why did Barack Obama surrender his IL law license?

The Background

Illinois Law: “Dishonesty on a prospective attorney’s application to the bar constitutes a fraud upon a tribunal. Once the fraud is discovered, the attorney may face disciplinary sanctions including disbarment.”

Where might Barack Obama have committed fraud on his Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar application?

Item 2A: Have you ever been known by any other first, middle or last name?

Prior to 1991, Barack Hussein Obama was known as Barry Obama and as Barry Soetoro. Did he put this on his application?

Item 51: Do you have any outstanding parking violations?

Between Oct. 5, 1988 and Jan. 12, 1990, Barack Obama was cited 17 times for parking violations in Cambridge, MA. For nearly two decades those parking tickets went unpaid, until a representative of Obama’s settled all his outstanding debts with Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department on Jan. 26, 2007.

In January 2007, the Obama campaign said the old parking tickets were not important. But the Illinois bar obviously considered them very important. In addition to the above, there is another item in the application that specifically mentions unpaid parking tickets.

Item 55: Do you understand that after your Character and Fitness Registration Application is filed, you will have a continuous reporting obligation and must notify the Board of Admissions of any changes or additions to the information provided in your application? This includes, but is not limited to, address changes, employment changes, criminal charges, disciplinary actions (educational, employment or other), and traffic violations, including any parking tickets that are not paid upon receipt.

It seems highly unlikely he owned up to these parking tickets on his application, since one would have expected the Illinois Board to require he pay them before he could be admitted to the bar, something he clearly did not do.

Item 44: Have you read and do you understand the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct?

Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct  [paraphrased for clarity only.]

RULE 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters: An applicant for admission to the bar shall not knowingly make a false statement.

RULE 8.4. A lawyer shall not commit a criminal act or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Item 53: Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your answers to questions in this application?

A page and a half of Barack Obama’s famous autobiography, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, covers his use of illegal substances (marijuana and cocaine) while he was enrolled at Occidental College. Did he put this on his application?

The Meat of the Thing

On March 13, 2007, a request was filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission asking the application to the bar that Barack Obama had filed in 1991 be examined in light of information that had recently been made public.

Barack Obama suddenly decided to voluntarily surrender his law license.

If the ARDC investigates a licensed lawyer, the proceedings become public record. but the ARDC won’t punish or publicize findings against a lawyer who voluntarily resigns.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

The Obama campaign said his early retirement was due to his political career.

But … he was elected to his first political office (Illinois State Senate) in 1996 and to his second (U.S. Senate) in 2004.

He did not resign his license to practice law until AFTER a complaint had been filed with the ARDC.

In addition, there is abundant proof that many career politicians, including Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, kept their law licenses current throughout their long political careers.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

Chrissy’s Site Bites @



Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Law