Skip to Content


New California Law lets Illegal Immigrants Practice Law

Is it just me or does this seem a little hypocritical?

Found at :

I'm a news junkie, so not much shocks me...

But as I was setting the dinner table, I heard a television report that California’s Gove
rnor Jerry Brown was slated to sign into law a bill allowing illegal aliens to become attorneys in the United States. Officers of the court. Defenders of the Constitution.

Dinner had to be reheated... I couldn't miss this one.

The case involves Sergio Garcia, a 36-year-old undocumented U.S. resident living in California. Garcia came to America with his parents when he was a baby, went back to Mexico at age nine, and returned to the States at age 17.

Since his return, Garcia’s father has become a U.S. citizen, and his mother is a permanent legal resident.

But while Garcia graduated from law school at Cal State Chico and earned his JD at Cal Northern School of Law, he never obtained citizenship. According to reports, Garcia was included on his father’s green card in 1995, but has been waiting ever since for his own.

Regardless, allowing someone to become an attorney in the U.S. before they obtain citizenship is putting the cart before the horse.

Right-wing ObamaCare myths debunked

Written by .  Too funny not to share.

Man, I hate these stupid, crazy, tea bagging right wingers. So foolish, so uncivilized. They run around screaming like crazed anarchists about how they want to stop Obamacare. Damned idiots don’t realize that the government needs to be involved in our health care decisions; we’re too helpless and feeble to handle it ourselves — unless we’re making the “medical” choice to get an abortion, in which case, THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, YOU GOVERNMENT PIGS. GET OUT! I mean, leave your wallet on the table, ’cause I’m gonna need you to pay for this, but then GET OUT, JERK.

There are many scare tactics being used by the tea baggers in an effort to discredit Obamacare. Personally, I hate scare tactics. You should never let anyone scare you away from supporting socialized medicine, mostly because without it every poor person in the country will get sick and die. Anyway, like I said, I disapprove of scare tactics.

Alan Grayson Spills the Beans on Stealth Socialism

Representative Grayson must be feeling particularly confident to admit socialism is the desired result.  From :

Barking moonbat Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL) understands what is happening to America and how it is happening. What he does not understand is that those who have been inflicting our fundamental transformation are not supposed to say openly what we are being fundamentally transformed into. But since no one except liberals reads Salon anyway, Grayson will probably never be punished at the polls for admissions like :

We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result.

Desired, that is, by people who are working toward an economic system based entirely on coercion rather than voluntary cooperation — or to use the familiar terms, socialists as opposed to capitalists.

California College Forbids Passing Out Constitutions... On Constitution Day

I'm sorry, you need to get a permit to request a permit to be permitted to speak.  Seen at :

MODESTO, Calif., September 19, 2013—In a stunning illustration of the attitude taken towards free speech by too many colleges across the United States, Modesto Junior College in California told a student that he could not pass out copies of the United States Constitution outside the student center on September 17, 2013—Constitution Day. , college police and administrators demanded that Robert Van Tuinen stop passing out Constitution pamphlets and told him that he would only be allowed to pass them out in the college’s tiny free speech zone, and only after scheduling it several days or weeks ahead of time. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has , demanding that the college rescind this policy immediately.

Et tu, Starbucks?

Starbucks CEO caved on their 2nd Amendment stance.  Boooo.  At :

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has gone from a 2nd amendment hero to a zero faster than you can say "triple shot espresso."

A couple of years ago, he earned a lot of fans by telling folks that the 11,000 Starbucks would welcome concealed carry permit holders who follow the law.  Some gun aficionados decided to show their appreciation by creating and carrying their guns openly in the coffee shops, where it's legal.  Anti gun forces pitched a fit.

But, now, Schultz has put out an any customers in its stores carrying a carry or concealed.  That's foolish.  A majority of Americans support the individual right to own and carry a gun and all fifty states have made it legal.

Starbucks says seeing a pistol upsets its anti-gun customers.

So what? Some bigots in America don't like seeing blacks, Muslims and Jews.  Is Starbucks going to ban Yarmulkes and Hajibs and dark skin next?

IL Supreme Court strikes down UUW in IL in 9-0 decision

Doesn't get more unanimous than this.  Sourced from :

Illinois prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home was struck down today by the Illinois State Supreme Court in 9-0 decision .

As far as we know, this is the first time a state supreme court in the United States has ruled the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the four corners of a residence.



It is our opinion that the Supreme Court has said today that until and unless the Illinois State Police begin issuing carry licenses, Illinois has a flat prohibition on carry of firearms outside the home and that, ladies and gentlemen, has just been recognized and determined to be in violation of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution.

Read the whole text at the link above.

Mom Banned From Praying on Public School Property

I'm of the mind that the school had no right to ban her.  She didn't work for the school, wasn't obstructing anyone, and regardless of what the FFRF say, it is not unconstitutional.  Giving the impression that the school supports a particular message is a far cry from actually officially supporting it.  Banning someone because they might offend someone's delicate sensibilities is wrong.

The school administration are chickens, and took the easy way out bowing to pressure than stand up for what is right.  Suppressing the freedom of speech and expression is absolutely unconstitutional, while protecting someone from what they may perceive as the school sanctioning a religion is quite a stretch.

Sourced from :

Syndicate content

by Dr. Radut