Tag Archives: United States Constitution

Obama’s illegal immigrant executive orders usher in chilling new era of liberalism

20 Nov

Tonight, Obama is going to continue to pull the wool over the public’s eyes by making his case for using executive orders to prevent six million (that’s about an additional 2% to the U.S. population!) illegal immigrants from being deported, thus bypassing approval from Congress.

Why this has not caused outrage among my fellow citizens is cause for great concern. To paraphrase a famous quote, all that is necessary for the triumph of tyranny is for good people to do nothing.

If you’ve watched the movie The Matrix, you know that in this blog, I like to give you the red pill. If you prefer to take the blue pill, then stop reading here.

There are three significant problems with Obama’s actions tonight, any one of which by themselves should cause a public furor:

1) Obama the hypocrite

Remember November 5th?

That’s when President Obama said “I hear you” to the voters who resoundingly thumped his fellow Democrats at the polls across the country, pledging to work with Congress and forge compromises to get things done.

But buried among the news reports of the pie-in-the-Democrat-face results of the November elections was a reminder that he was going to use executive actions to protect six million illegal immigrants from deportation.

In other words, not one soul noticed Obama’s blatant hypocrisy. Out of one side of his mouth, he pledges to work with Congress; out of the other side of his mouth, he flips the middle finger to not only Congress but the U.S. Constitution itself to create new immigration policy without congressional approval.

2) Obama the dictator

Obama’s use of executive orders to reshape a major national policy reveals his taste for totalitarianism. The brilliance of the U.S. Constitution is the concept of checks and balances, whereby no one branch of government can become overpowering.

King Obama, however, has repeatedly expressed a disdain for the Constitution. He has said it is “imperfect” and “deeply flawed” and that we need to “break free” from the Constitution. So Obama does not want to follow the standard; he wants to do whatever is right in his own eyes. And if there is no standard, all you-know-what breaks loose.

While executive orders can, in rare instances, involve large policy changes with wide-ranging effects, the goal is always to have the government come to an agreement on such matters—which is more reflective of our democracy—rather than a unilateral decision by one person, which is more reflective of a dictatorship.

3) Obama forcing his morality upon others

One of the most common arguments by atheists and liberals is that conservatives want to “force their morality on everyone else.” Has anyone else realized that liberals and atheists are just as lustful in their desire to “force their morality on everyone else”? When Obama wants to force an immigration policy upon the nation without discussion, compromise or vote, isn’t that forcing his morality on everyone else?

Let’s not fool ourselves: the “forcing morality” argument does NOT apply just to conservatives. When gays want the right to marry, aren’t they forcing their morality on everyone else?

With these executive orders, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he wants to force his liberal morality on others.

Bottom line

I’m not against immigrants. My parents were immigrants. But they were legal immigrants. Our country is on a fiscal cliff and Obama wants to add to our nation’s fiscal burden by fast-tracking illegals, which in turn will only encourage even more illegals to cross into our borders. It is a pandora’s box and a slippery slope packaged in a trojan horse.

When people like Obama want to “break free” from the standard that governs this great nation and would rather do what is right in his own socialist eyes, we are in trouble.


PETA drowns in hypocrisy over SeaWorld whale lawsuit

9 Feb
English: PETA AsiaPacific anti-zoo demonstration

Image via Wikipedia

In October, the radical animal rights group PETA—best known for assaulting fur coat wearers with paint—filed an unprecedented lawsuit naming five killer whales as plaintiffs against SeaWorld, seeking freedom from slavery.

In other words, PETA was asking that animals be protected by the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery and involuntary servitude.

The lawsuit was not only unprecedented in its attempt to apply constitutional rights to animals, but also unprecedented in its hypocrisy and stupidity, which is saying something for PETA.

Yesterday, a federal judge in San Diego dismissed the suit—thankfully. What a waste of time and money.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller wrote, “As ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans.”


PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr responded, “Today’s decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld. PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve.”

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.

Why would PETA ever think the Constitution applies to animals? I mean, you have to really be warped to come up with that argument.

The reason PETA’s argument is hypocritical is because it picked-and-chose what parts of the Constitution it wanted to grant to animals.

Why didn’t PETA also demand that cows have the right to bear arms? Or horses be given the right to free speech? Or pigs be allowed to vote?

Another example of PETA’s hypocrisy (and stupidity) is not considering the consequences of taking the slavery argument to its logical conclusion.

That is, if whales in SeaWorld are considered slaves, then pet dogs are too. So are pet cats, pet fish, pet hamsters, lizards, snakes, as well as all farm animals. Zoos would be illegal too. After all, no animals should be owned by humans, according to PETA’s argument.

That means all animals would be roaming the streets and sidewalks. You couldn’t ship them back to their native habitat because that would be humans forcing animals to be “enslaved” in particular locales rather than giving them true freedom to pick and choose where they want to live.

I doubt PETA would argue that we let animals have complete freedom. I’m sure PETA would argue the animals be returned to their “normal” habitat, right?

But either humans have dominion over animals, or animals must have the same exact freedom in all aspects as humans do. To pick-and-choose the amount and type of freedom is hypocrisy.

Or absurdist comedy to the extreme.

In celebration of the judge’s ruling, I’m going to have a big tasty steak for dinner.

After all, doesn’t PETA stand for ‘People Eating Tasty Animals’?