Archive for May, 2009

TOMMY DE SENO: Does the Obama Administration Approve of Racial Intimidation, Nightsticks at Polls?

May 30, 2009

By Tommy De Seno
Attorney/Editor, Justified Right

Democrats are awful.

Remember in the 2004 election when the Democratic National Committee put out an election handbook telling workers to claim voter intimidation by Republicans even if there wasn’t any?  Here is part of the handbook:

2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive

The handbook then makes suggestions for press releases with quotes from important people about voter intimidation in general, which will give the impression that voter intimidation is taking place now.

In other words, the DNC told poll workers to mislead the world into thinking the Republicans engaged in voter intimidation when they did not.

That gave rise to endless screams of voter suppression which were baseless.

The standard for what could possibly be “voter intimidation” when Bush won elections was set pretty low.  Read this report from the US Commission on Civil Rights, where it is suggested that the mere presence of an empty police car parked across the street from a polling place could be intimidation.

Now fast forward to the 2008 election, when 3 members of the New Black Panther Party showed up in paramilitary uniforms, one brandishing a nightstick.  They stood near the doorway of a Philadelphia polling place, one tapping the nightstick in his hand, and proceeded to make insults to white people (and black people they perceived as McCain supporters) as they came to vote.

FOX News reports:

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960’s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Let’s be clear that law abiding citizens, both white and black, would not want to deal with these 3 guys and their nightstick at a polling place, nor should they have to summon the courage to do so just to vote.

The Bush administration investigated the incident and charged the three members of the New Black Panthers with voter intimidation.

The Obama administration has taken over the case, and dropped the charges.

So an empty police vehicle is intimidation, but 3 men in paramilitary uniforms brandishing a nightstick and hurling insults at voters is not?

Imagine if 3 idiots in Ku Klux Klan outfits stood at the entrance of a Southern polling place with a nightstick and hurled insults at black voters.  The Obama administration would not only throw the book at them, the DNC would lie and claim the RNC put them up to it.

For a better feel of how intimidating these guys were, take a look at this video shot on election day, and welcome to the new world of Obama voting –  there’s no such thing as voter intimidation, so long as you are intimidating Republicans:

Welcome to the Obama-Nation! Its no surprise he have a bunch of thugs intimidating people at the polls. It is very reminescent of elections from the homeland of his father.


Bible Study ILLEGAL in California!

May 29, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones’ thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it’s about more than a question of money.

“The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion,” Broyles told FOX News. “I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home.”

“The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved,” Mary Jones said. “There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future.”

The couple is planning to dispute the county’s order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

If they were gathering to study Mao’s “Little Red Book” or Karl Marx, I’m sure nothing would have been said. What they should have said was the were gathering to study the teaching of their lord and saviour (notice the lack of capitalization) Barack Obama and they would have got a grant from the state and probably police protection. When is everybody going to WAKE UP and realize we are under attack from the enemy within! Political correctness is the battle cry of the oppressors! FREEDOM should be our cry!

Texan Woman Told to Remove ‘Offensive’ American Flag From Office

May 28, 2009

Debbie McLucas comes from a patriotic family – her husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military, and her daughter is currently deployed to Iraq on her second tour of duty as a combat medic.

So when McLucas arrived at work at a Texas hospital last Friday, she was stunned to be told that the Stars and Stripes she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day were offensive, and that the flag had been removed.

“I got into work, I was met by my supervisor and told that there had been multiple complaints, that people found the flag very offensive and it had been taken down,” McLucas told

“I went to the office to retrieve it and found the flag wrapped around the pole, sitting in the corner on the ground. I was speechless.”

McLucas, a supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, had displayed the 3-by-5-foot flag in the office she shares with the hospital’s three other supervisors. McLucas said one of her colleagues, a woman who immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago, complained about the flag to upper management, and the hospital decided to take down the flag.

“I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down,” McLucas said.

She said the hospital told her that the American flag flying outside the building would have to suffice. “I was told, ‘There is a flag hanging out front, everyone can see that one. Is that not enough?’”

No, she said, that wasn’t enough.

“It is more than I can even fathom, that you would find the American flag offensive, in America,” McLucas said.

A Kindred Healthcare spokeswoman did not return calls for comment. Kindred issued a press release stating, “Kindred Hospital Mansfield has a great deal of appreciation for the service that many of our employees and their families have given to their country. We honor our veterans and active military through a variety of benefits and service programs. This was an isolated incident between two employees that we are working to resolve amicably.”

The statement went on to explain: “The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up.”

And it will go back up and stay up, McLucas said.

“I do think they’re trying to do the right thing. I have no reason to believe the flag won’t remain there as long as I’m employed.”

It is time for ALL AMERICANS to stand up and say NO MORE to the “politically correct”, “we feel your pain”, “kumbaya” BULL SHIT!! How offensive is to display the flag of your country, in your office IN THAT SAME COUNTRY? Also, how GUTLESS is an administrator who would cave to someone coming to our country and bullying him to take down our national symbol?

Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites

May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:35 AM

By: Kenneth D. Williams

Article Font Size 

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s pick to become the newest Supreme Court justice, is on the record with some controversial remarks about ‘diversity,’ ‘judicial activism’ and female judges vs. male judges.

For example, the New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor had this to say:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Also, there is a 2005 video of Sotomayor, speaking with potential law clerks, saying that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She added: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it …”

Regarding Sotomayor’s chances to avoid a filibuster of her nomination, Senator Orrin Hatch told Politico, “I’ll tell you one thing, I’m not very happy about judges who will substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is; who think that they can run the country from the bench when they actually have a limited role. And that role is to interpret the laws made by those who have to stand for reelection.”

Despite Hatch’s misgivings, Democratic Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama asking him to appoint a Latino to fill the next vacancy on the United States Supreme Court Back in April.

“It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court,” Senator Schumer said.

“We are fortunate in New York State to have jurists of the caliber and intellect that Judge Sotomayor has exhibited during a lifelong career of service to the bench. As an accomplished jurists, as a woman, and as a Latina she would bring to the United States Supreme Court a much needed voice. We must be committed to diversity on our nation’s highest bench. These candidates will restore the balance that we so desperately need on the Court,” Senator Gillibrand said. © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Just more evidence……………..

Sotomayor — Obama’s Nominee Spouts Biased Views on Race and Gender

May 27, 2009

By S.E. Cupp
Conservative Commentator/Author, “Why You’re Wrong About the Right”

There’s that ubiquitous word again — “historic.” It seems to follow Barack Obama wherever he goes…

After telling the world that he would choose someone with “empathy,” Obama has announced that Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman, is his choice to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Women and Hispanics the nation over, rejoice. There may soon be someone on the bench who will put you first. Literally.


When a person suggests that white men are less qualified for a job than Latina women, we call that racism and sexism. Apparently Sotomayor – and President Obama – call that “empathy.”


Sorry, white guys. Ms. Sotomayor is, quite simply, not your gal. For one thing, she doesn’t think you’re anatomically or ethnically qualified to do her job as well as she is.

In 2001 she told a crowd at the University of California, Berkeley, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” White guys, blame the ups and downs of the genetic lottery.

She also doesn’t think it’s possible – or even a valid exercise – to attempt to transcend race and gender as a judge. “I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” If you thought electing Obama meant living in a post-race America, think again. And ladies, get those bras out – it is officially 1969.

Finally, she’s hoping women and minorities win more and more prestigious judicial appointments. As for the women and men of color already populating the benches around the country, she says, “Those figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.” Hit the back of the line, white guys.

But to all the forgotten, pasty, sun-deprived, uterus-less men of America, there’s good news yet. It’s not white guys that a worldview such as this hurts most –- it’s women and minorities.

What Sotomayor and other political activists are saying when they advocate for women and minorities to be placed in positions of power –- even if they’ve earned it, and especially if they’ve earned it –- is that gender and skin color are more important than intellect, compassion, reason and experience. This is the exact opposite of what we try to teach our children about the world.

Sotomayor worked her way out of the Bronx projects, past a diabetes diagnosis, and through Princeton and Yale to become the youngest judge in the Southern district of New York. And yet, the country shouldn’t aspire to put more candidates like that on the bench, but instead to appoint more women and minorities? What incentive, then, does a Hispanic woman have to even bother going to school, when the bona fides that matter most are the ones she’s born with?

Both the women’s liberation movement and the civil rights movement sought to transcend sexual and race politics. The idea was to stop judging people on the color of their skin, or their gender, and instead on their actions and their accomplishments. When Sotomayor or any other activist chooses to promote her gender or ethnicity as some kind of currency, it is telling the world that not only does her ethnicity and her gender make her different, but she thinks it actually makes her better.

The hypocrisy of liberal identity politics, of course, is evident any time an empty seat requires a political appointment. Obama’s vacancy meant, for the left, that a black candidate should fill his seat – and Roland Burris did. Hillary Clinton’s vacancy meant, for the left, that a woman should fill her seat – and Kirsten Gillibrand did. On the left, voters are told they should want someone who looks like they do to represent them.

But when conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, vote their faith – say, by electing George W. Bush or supporting Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee – it is nothing less than bigotry, a lack of sophistication and, somehow, an injustice to the voting process. Voting on skin color or ethnicity is valid when there’s a “D” after the name, but voting on values is not if there’s an “R” after it.

Ms. Sotomayor has a reputation for being combative and temperamental, and has drawn criticism from her former clerks and colleagues. And Senate Republicans are sure to go after her liberal record. She’s hardly the kind of centrist or crowd-pleasing appointment that Obama has thus far seemed to prefer, a gesture that the far-left is sure to appreciate as a long-overdue acknowledgment of their existence. She is, in short, poised to bring President Obama the thing he is always least prepared for –- resistance — even if an eventual confirmation is a given.

Whether Sonia Sotomayor is “historic” or not shouldn’t really matter. Nor should her ethnicity or gender. When a person suggests that white men are less qualified for a job than Latina women, we call that racism and sexism. Apparently Sotomayor – and President Obama – call that “empathy.”

Well, well, well. So we have a Supreme Court nominee that has stated in speeches and decisions such things as, although the federal law may allow gun ownership, each state can legally undermine it and thus, over ruling the Constitution. Or, in a Duke University speech in 2005, “The court of appeals is where policy is made.”. As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court. Another interesting point is, “Sotomayor has a record of being rebuffed by the high court. Of the six decisions she was a part of that came before the high court, five were reversed. In the sixth, the court disagreed with Sotomayor’s reasoning.” Other interesting points are…….

— In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001.

— In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.”

— Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate’s rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion.

— In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the “lone black child” in the class was not given an “equal chance.”

— In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “best technology available.” She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

— In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant — prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an “abomination” that the defendant did not deserve.

However, there are decisions that do not fit the mold that the above ones suggest. “

In 2002, she ruled against an abortion rights group that claimed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” — which prohibited U.S. funding from going to foreign groups performing or supporting abortion services — was a violation of the First Amendment and other rights.

The government is “free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she held.

In another 2004 case, Sotomayor’s opinion ruled in favor of anti-abortion protesters who claimed a town had improperly trained officers who allegedly used excessive force in arresting them. Plus she has sided against minority plaintiffs who brought discrimination cases to her court.”

Thanks to Fox News for the quotes used in my response.

The most un-nerving part about this is the fact that race and gender DOES matter to the Left. In other words, the official Obama-Nation policy is…………..”White Males Need Not Apply”! Remember…..its all about gettin’ whitey back!

Coming to a Supreme Court near you………….

May 25, 2009

President Obama tells CSPAN in an interview that a Supreme Court nominee announcement is coming soon.

He hopes that the nomination hearings will get underway in July before Congress goes on its summer recess so that whoever the nominee is, they have time to prepare for their new job.

Mr. Obama didn’t give any hints about who his pick might be, but talked about the qualities in a justice that important to him.

“In all these cases what I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works.”

And as for picking a woman to the high court (something he is speculated to do), the President tells CSPAN that he’s not getting pressure to do so. The First Lady has told him to just pick whoever is right for the job.

“I don’t feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court Justice based on demographics,” he says.

Just as long as the person is non-white, female, lesbian, handicapped,”mentally challenged”, Eskimo who grew up homeless, becuase some evil white man made her family pay rent for the place they rented. Whose father disappeared or went to jail and went to school on afirmative action and was in the bottom 1/4 of the class because those evil white people above her laid around and studied while she was forced to sell crack at night for meal money. Does that about cover it Mr. President? Because we all know, its not about what you know, its about gettin’ whitey back!


May 25, 2009

Today, North Korea said that it has conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law.  It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch.  These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations.  North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.  
By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community.  North Korea’s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia.  Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation.  It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants action by the international community.  We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council in the days ahead.

…And if you don’t stop, we are going to get together and say bad things about you. SO THERE! Naa, Na, Na Na Naa! And.and…..We WON’T feel your pain. and, and, my daddy can beat your daddy! Geez Mr. President. I think that really got Kim Jeong “mentally” Il crapping in his pants. Probably because he lost sphincter control from laughing hysterically. You couldn’t intimidate my 8 year old!!!

A Leader? A President? Commander-in-Chief? An Immature Response…

May 19, 2009

FoxNews Reports…..

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons has been denied a meeting with President Obama when he is in town next week to attend a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace. 

Gibbons, a Republican, had demanded a sit-down meeting following Obama’s controversial statement that companies shouldn’t book trips to Las Vegas if they have received federal bailouts and claims statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State.

In a statement Gibbons put out Monday, the governor said Obama’s quote that “you can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime” was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 “room-nights,” according to a statement from Gibbons. The cancelled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue, the governor said.

“I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this administration,” Gibbons said. “President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments. 

“President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the president, but our tourism, jobs and economic future are not. This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada.”

Gibbons is calling upon Reid to use any influence he might have to ask Obama to encourage Americans to visit America during their summer vacations this year.

“Sometimes Washington politicians forget that the people of Nevada are Americans,” Gibbons said. “This president needs to repair the damage he has done.”

A sitting President refusing to meet with a Governor when visiting that Governor’s state is a “slap in the face” and shows that the President doesn’t understand, or care, about how this nation works. It makes me wonder if he REALLY thinks all things flow from him? HE is the center of the universe? Sad he can be so childish. sadder still, we made him President.

The Nortre Dame speech………….

May 19, 2009

             Just a few thought on the speech the President gave at Notre Dame University over the weekend. I find it quite curious that his “saviour-ness” felt compelled to give a commencement at a Catholic university and discuss abortion in the speech. Granted, there were people who expressed reservations that he were even invited to speak considering is views were contrary to the Church’s view. I, personally, think that the protesters should NOT have mentioned it.I understand how “heated” some are on this topic. With that said, you would think that the President would not state those views there. WHY, WHY, WHY, do we need to talk about abortion at a commencement speech? It makes no sense UNLESS you WANT to cause a problem OR you are so full of yourself that you DEMAND submission on the issue. You would expect a president—a diplomat, to be just that. But, not this president! He is too busy wanting to be Emperor!

NOEL SHEPPARD: The Media’s So Biased It Isn’t Funny!

May 14, 2009

By Noel Sheppard
Associate Editor,

Years from now, the week of May 4, 2009, may be remembered as when it became crystal clear to even the most liberal Americans the media are so biased it isn’t funny.

The week innocently began with a Los Angeles Times entertainment reporter addressing how comedians are still afraid to make jokes about Barack Obama.

Having possibly read the piece, “Late Show” host David Letterman on Thursday tried to remedy the situation by having one of his writers feebly attempt to poke fun at the new President.

NOEL SHEPPARD: The Media’s So Biased It Isn’t Funny!



“Barack Obama is so dumb, when he was Governor of Texas, someone asked him what the capital of Texas is, and he said, ‘Capital T.’”

Thus began a string of supposed Obama jokes intentionally missing the mark and, instead, bashing former President George W. Bush.


Whether this was life imitating art or vice versa is irrelevant, for one of America’s favorite funnymen was coming right out and admitting he’s just not ready to say anything against the new White House resident even in jest.

Unfortunately, the really bad jokes were right around the corner, for when the Labor Departmentannounced the following day employers had shed 539,000 workers from their payrolls in April, the Obama-loving media actually reported it as good news.

We really are in Camelot now.

Not only are you forbidden to make jokes about the new king, errr, president, but all news, no matter how bad, must now be reported as good.

Tourists planning a vacation to our nation’s capital this summer should also be pleased to know that from this point forward, July and August cannot be too hot.

Of course, Washington, D.C., wasn’t always such a congenial spot, for when it was announced only five months ago the economy lost 533,000 jobs in November, the press viewed it as so cataclysmic it was necessary for all Americans to immediately support president-elect Obama’s stimulus plan or suffer the most dire of economic and financial consequences.

So it came to pass that virtually the same exact economic data hailed as apocalyptic when Bush was president was now a sign the economy is improving.

Yet, this shouldn’t be at all surprising, for the media never wanted to admit things were ever good during Bush the Second’s reign.

First, his recovery was “jobless.” Then, it wasn’t producing enough new hires to keep up with the growth in the labor force.

Finally, when unemployment really began declining in his second term to levels rarely seen in the post-World War II era, the media claimed the jobs created were all low-paying or part-time.

What a difference an “O” makes, for now that a man the press adore is in the White House, over a half million Americans can lose their jobs in a month, and it’s a sign things are getting better.

As one of my readers marvelously quipped last Friday, for eight years the press bemoaned the emptiness of the full glass, and now they are praising the fullness of the empty glass.

Makes you wonder what’s going to happen when the recession really ends, and the first report showing an increase of even one job is released.

They’ll probably throw Obama a parade which certainly won’t be inconvenienced by inclement weather for rain isn’t allowed to fall till after sundown now.

In anticipation of this event, comedienne Wanda Sykes has already been booked as the Mistress of Ceremonies.

I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but that’s how conditions are.

Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center’s He welcomes feedback at                                                                                                                                                                                       It is amazing how the “touchy-feely” party has created this “air” about it that you no longer feel you can exercise your right to free speech. I think it behooves us to go out of our way to purposely do things to make fun of our president just so nobody gets the idea that we can’t. Remember, the title of this blog………..