Law of the Land? It All Depends. (Open Thread)

jpg_law_justice_003Lately, the Democrats and Obama supporters in the media (aka the JournOlist) have settled on a new meme that’s been repeated by Senator Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, among others.   Sayeth Senate Majority Leader Reid:

Obamacare is the law of the land, and will remain the law of the land as long as Barack Obama is president of the United States and I am Senate Majority Leader.

There’s the meme:

Obama care is the “law of the land.”

Sayeth ordinary citizen Hillary Clinton:

On the one hand a law was passed, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land

For some reason, the progressive left have settled on that argument, that Obamacare is “the law of the land,” AS IF this president and his cronies have ever cared about the law of the land.

The First Amendment is the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect that law?  No.  Just ask James Rosen how the Obama administration respects freedom of the press; or ask Tea Party members how the Obama administration respects freedom of speech and the right to freely assemble; or ask Christian members of the military or the Catholic Church how the Obama administration respects freedom of religion.

The Second Amendment is the law of the land.  Do Obama and his minions respect that law?  No. Just ask the NRA and law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens how the Obama administration respects the right to keep and bear arms.

Laws against illegal immigration are the law of the land.  Do Obama and his minions respect those laws? No. Just ask the good citizens of border states– who deal on a daily basis with being overrun by illegal aliens–how the Obama administration protects our citizens’ rights, when Obama has illegally given executive-order amnesty to all those illegal non-citizens.

The Fourth Amendment is the law of the land.  Do Obama and his minions respect that law?  No.  Just ask anybody (most of us) whose emails and telephone records were grabbed and stored by the NSA how the Obama administration respects our right to be secure from unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures.

Federal drug laws are the law of the land.  Do Obama and his minions respect those laws?  No.  Just ask the citizens of states like Colorado, where federal officials have been instructed to look the other way when people break drug laws.

The laws of the land that Obama and his minions have chosen to ignore or openly flout are too numerous to mention, but one requires special mention:

The Constitution of the USA is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  Does Obama respect that supreme law?   No.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

The law of the land.

If you’re Obama or one of his supporters, it all depends upon the letter of the law whether or not you’ll uphold the law of the land. It all depends.


141 responses to “Law of the Land? It All Depends. (Open Thread)

    • Cruz this morning. 🙂

      • It’s a shame that he’s not a NBC. Would you believe that a CPAC thing going on in MO features Rick Santorum and, yes, they’re saying in the media that he’s a potential 2016 candidate. ARGHHHH. What will we end up with in 2016? It’s frustrating. Rand Paul would be acceptable to me, even if he’s a little too libertarian for my taste. I can live with it.

    • You see how it’s working out for Barry? NSA spies. White commanders all across the military get blackmailed and/or prosecuted. They’re “retired” or drummed out and voila! Barry’s stooges control the military. Less chance anybody might decide to get all patriotic when the ultimate fascist orders come down. Already, it’s alleged that Gen. Ham refused that “stand down” order regarding Benghazi and was relieved of command by an underling.

  1. Compare the 1991 Alvin Onaka signature.. with the 1995’s +more

  2. Jack Cashill’s parting words tonight ….as Barbara Simpson asked…

    Who do you think….. you might like 2 run….. Palin / Paul… 2 P’s… O’

    • That’s the TICKET!!!! And two NBC’s, too! No hay problemo. It’s all good.

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      Another unpopular stance, but I must call it as I see it

      I am so sorry for repeating this but I fail to understand how intelligent people- all of you who post here- do not comprehend that Sarah Palin’s image has been irredeemably RUINED by the media. Not just tarnishes as I have written before, but utterly ruined! We know what a wonderful patriot she is. To the Dumbs, she is a laughingstock. To mainstream Republicans, she is a thorn in their side and they, too, will do everything in their power to pile on.

      I am still amazed that some of you believe she can win. She cannot. She has been ruined by the MSM and there aren’t enough who haven’t been brainwashed by tell-a-vision who can see through their B.S. It frustrates me because you all have excellent perception when it comes to everything else but have blinders on when it comes to the fact that the media has ruined Sarah Palin. If she is on the ticket, Hillary is guaranteed to win. Please open your eyes to what the media has done to her. Her being on the ticket (as wonderful as she is) will sound the last death knell.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        edit: tarnished.

        I must add the only reason I voted for that traitor McCain in ’08 was because of Sarah. The media saw how popular she was. They, therefore had to ruin her.

      • You’re probably right, RW, but hope springs eternal. I can’t help loving Sarah because she’s so REAL and she speaks her mind, which is what we want in a leader. I’m so sick and tired of phonies who tell us what they think we want to hear and then proceed to do what they intended to do all along. Wishy-washy RINOs, etc.

        Maybe there’s no hope for Sarah, but look–they’re going to DESTROY any candidate, no matter who s/he is, if the candidate is a conservative. They do it to EVERY ONE. Look how they’re piling on Cruz right now. They pile on ANYBODY they think might get traction and they use the same old meme: The person is stupid (Dan Quayle, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan).

        Our only hope is for the People to wake up and realize, once and for all, that the media LIE. As Sarah told us so adroitly. I want so badly to believe that We the People will wise up, collectively, and vote for a person who could be one of us. That’s SUPPOSED to be the beauty of our system–that anybody can be president. The reality, however, is far from that ideal.

        All we get, time after time, are CONNECTED candidates. Like that Mike Lee. I’m sorry: he could be the greatest Tea Party guy ever, but look at his connections! Harry Reid? Seriously? Where are the REAL PEOPLE in Congress? WHERE?

        Unless the Republican Party learns to FIGHT, we’re doomed to perpetual rule by the DemoncRAT party. Do you notice how outraged the media and the leftists are when the Republicans show the slightest inclination to take a page out of the progressive playbook and fight like a DemoncRAT? (The current shutdown crisis, e.g.)

        I’m surprised, however, by the number of people on the left who are arguing AGAINST Hillary running. Anytime I see dissension among them, I love it. I want a ring side seat! Hillary herself is tarnished, if not irredeemably ruined, by Benghazi and by her long association with this administration as well as so many corrupt individuals from past administrations. Even her friend John McLame may not be able to help Hillary restore her image. Botox and filler or not.

        RW, never worry about speaking your mind. That’s why we’re here and why we love you!

        • I personally think, by the way the masses are drawn to Cruz, which I think is not only his stands but his 1950’s look, are ready for two white fuddy-duddy-vaguely sexy-Beaver Cleaver’s Dad’s suited, males. So ready to go back in time. No more experiments with youth, with edgy, with first anything. Just give us our daddy figure in the WH back. People don’t know it but they still see safety and security in a man’s man and two on the ticket is better than one plus a token first something or other.

          • He does indeed look rather 50-ish, but he’s too young, being born in 1970. But I get your point. However, isn’t he a white hispanic? 🙂 That Brylcreem thing he’s got going on … not sure I like that. He is more of a man’s man than, say, Cantor or Santorum. That’s for sure. I wish Clint would run. I don’t care how old he is. We did pretty well with the last PROFESSIONAL actor we elected.

          • Rosemary Woodhouse

            Agreed, WAH. Going on the record: I like Ted Cruz.

      • Rosemary, I get you and hear you. A similar discussion about Cruz where I commented (a bit longwinded of course). The same applies to Sarah Palin. A high percentage won’t vote for her on principle. She has what it takes to inspire and be heard but she failed one hell of an important test. In 2008 election she let herself be silenced. What would have happened if she spoke out the truth; said the things she wanted to say? We lost anyways. Could we have won if she had not listened to the bully handelers? Could we have won if she had not ‘played the game”? Probably not. BUT she knew what a community organizer REALLY was and did NOT tell us! She did not answer the 3am phone call, so to speak. Her power time came to her and she waffled. I don’t blame her but many, on principle, will not vote for her because they see her as proven not to be presidential material. The see her as someone who can easily, outside of her private citizen inspirational rhetoric, be ‘handled’. So, the last part of my second comment at the linked discussion applies to SP being the candidate.

        • Good point, WAH. I didn’t think of it that way. She did acquiesce to the handlers. Where will we find someone who speaks truth to power? I’m so sick and tired of these people who will NOT tell it like it is.

        • Rosemary Wodhouse

          Here’s the massive problem we face and “they” know it. So many people are dumb as rocks. They get their news from the complicit media. If they paint Sarah Palin as a dummy or a quitter (that was a big meme) then the masses believe it.

          This was the most well thought out and perfectly executed plot/ couo, ever. And to think, it only took them approx 5 decades to fully infiltrate and destroy.

  3. What an idiot looks like:

    Dude’s getting a vasectomy so he doesn’t have children that “increase the carbon footprint” and DESTROY THE WORLD. And he fashions himself as a scientist. Well, a WEATHERMAN (who doesn’t know which way the wind blows, btw).

    • He says, “we all have to do EVERYTHING we can, every day to reverse CO2 emissions.”

      Well, dude, STOP BREATHING. Every breath you take, dude, you exhale more CO2 than you took in and then you DESTROY THE EARTH! Of course, it follows that he also has to stop eating beans or … you know, gaseous emissions of the global warming kind. PLANT TREES!

      He also claims he’s never going to fly on a plane again. Right. Like RFK Jr. Hmm. How much CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere to fly all those “experts” to all those conferences so that they can issue reports telling us “little people” that we’re DESTROYING THE EARTH? Actually, since “climate change” is caused by CO2, which is emitted by planes massively, then it’s a good reason to ABOLISH THE UN and force them to have their meetings via teleconference. IF the UN cares SO MUCH about “climate change”, then that should be a small price for them to pay. Right? STAY THE EFF HOME in whatever Third World country you come from. We don’t need you here in NYC. GET the EFF OUT of our country and don’t let the door hit you in the BUTT on your way out.

      Enquiring minds want to know: Will his wife divorce him? Is she as crazed as he? Maybe she wants kids, if he does not.


        A sensible counterpoint to the IPCC hysteria. btw, OF COURSE, the report was rigged, “scientists” carefully screened in advance for their politically correct bias, and they just ignored those “inconvenient truths” like how temperatures haven’t risen in 15 years despite more CO2 in the atmosphere and how their stupid models did NOT predict that “pause” so … What conclusion MUST an unbiased scientist make? The models are WRONG. If the models are WRONG, then the hypothesis doesn’t stand up. Ergo, there’s no such thing as HUMAN-CAUSED global warming (now known as “climate change” as they, as usual, change the terminology to suit their politics). I heard some fool on TV yesterday saying (paraphrasing) “There’s no doubt about it now–the climate is changing.”


  4. Here’s a brave and intelligent soul, opposing diversity “re-education” and blanket RACIST accusations of universal white racism:

    Do read the letter this teaching assistant wrote to his bosses. It’s fabulous. It’s long past time for people to stand up and throw off the smothering mantle of political correctness.

    • Great letter but lousy intro by the author of the article presenting it:

      “In the introduction of this article is says, “What’s more, the next session – on how to support transgender students – is something Morgan said he cannot support, as it runs in direct contradiction to his religious beliefs.”
      Mr. Morgan’s letter does not take a religious belief stand. In fact he specifically mentioned his PROFESSIONAL reasons for not engaging which are it is not his course hired to teach and the students personal lives are NOT his business. Or did I get this wrong? It does an injustice to pass this article around as a religious belief issue as then it is labeled and boxed in as ONLY that reason and many will immediately not even read the article to see the very well thought out reasons of Mr. Morgan which are reasons that can be common ground for people to find that are both for and against or nuetral on the moral issues of transgendering. It is a slap in Mr. Morgan’s face and his eloquently, well-thought out letter to reduce his concerns to a religious belief (which he may or may not hold but that is irrelevant.)”

      • I noticed that, too. Maybe he said it off the record to the reporter, but he was perfectly right to make PROFESSIONAL objections because then they can’t, in kneejerk fashion, simply ignore his complaints on the basis that he’s a crazed homophobe or religious nut. You’re correct, though, that maybe they labeled his objections as religiously based in order to keep people from reading his arguments or logically considering his SECULAR and well-founded and well-reasoned objections.

  5. I too wish Sarah could be POTUS but I do agree with Rose.Sadly. 😦

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      Believe me, FL….I’m sad about it as well. But we MUST be practical. We cannot have another Democrat or RINO win. End of story!

  6. Garbage in…& OUT~ A FRESH delicious APPLE… J-Jay… Trains off
    the rails…. oh so pretty… Tinglepants~ CM…Mr. big belly full of self!
    ~~~~ HOPE~NOSIS~~~~~~ oh yea …& drink your WATER!!!!!

    • Wrong analogy. Since it’s not in effect yet, they’re aborting it. 😉

      Now keeping in mind what the DemoncRATS and the progressives in the media have been saying about Republicans and Ted Cruz (they’re terrorists, they’re murderers, etc.), consider the irony of this editorial:

      “… How fabulous to command the nation’s attention and compare the Affordable Care Act not only to Dr. Seuss’ “Green Eggs and Ham,” but to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis at Munich, thus demonstrating an ignorance of children’s literature, 20th-century history and rhetorical excess all at once. …”

      You have to read the entire screed to get an understanding of “rhetorical excess.” They do so hate it when conservatives use progressive tactics against them. They can dish it out but they cannot take it. Only the left is allowed “rhetorical excess” and can use violent, offensive, extremist analogies against people with whom they simply disagree. And they ALWAYS fail to see their own hypocrisy. They also, amazingly enough, call Ted Cruz a narcissist when their favorite guy has got to be in the running for Narcissist of the Past Few Decades, if not the Last Century. Hitler and Stalin have nothing on him.

      And they call Republicans and Cruz EXTREMISTS.

    • Oh, that’s great. They’re going to make a splash at least as big as the one the bikers made.

      “In less than two weeks, thousands of truckers will descend on Washington, D.C., driving their big-rigs and calling for the restoration of a constitutional republic – but now their plan has taken a new twist: Their friends and families will simultaneously join other Americans rallying on overpasses across the nation for Obama’s impeachment.

      The Truckers’ Ride for the Constitution movement has a new ally in their protest against what organizers say is corruption in government and a trashing of the Constitution. The group is teaming up with Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment to line the routes into Washington with flags during the Oct. 11-13 event. …”

      Mark your calendars.

  7. This is GOODNESS ~ ARE WE READY???? lot’s of AMERICAN’s
    KNOW what is on the LINE!!!!! ~~~ LET’s ROLL~~~ LET’s GO….

  8. Feel like revisting Scarhead?

    “What’s that scar on Obama’s head? (I put the red dots over the 666 above his ear so you can better see the sinister numbers.) … ”

    Go to the link to see Dr. Eowyn’s photo. She links to a previous post about his scars: Now that post’s from April, 2011. She writes,

    “Just what we need: Another mystery about the man of mystery.

    The latest mystery about Obama — no, it’s not his birth certificate — has to do with the appearance of a strange long scar on Obama’s head.

    The Daily Mail reports on April 6, 2011, that a question circulating on the internet is whether Obama had had brain surgery. (DM did not name the blogger, but it’s probably Ben Hart of who first raised the scar issue on the Internet.) …” (He has good photos.)

    I’m sorry, but I beg to differ: DECEMBER 23, 2009

    “… Now we see that Obama has a giant scar running up the right side of his head. There was no mention of this scar or a related injury in Dr. Scheiner’s letter. Did Obama have brain surgery, a lobotomy for depression, or was he chipped? Was he in an accident? Does he have a metal plate in his head? Was an electronic gadget implanted in his head? Was he programmed or is he being directed by an outside source that sends directives to his brain? Was Mama dearest, not so dear? …”

    Bridgette hat-tips Beckwith at the Obama File, who had the scar photo on Dec. 20, 2009, and said: “That’s a nasty scar.” Indeed it is.

    Presumably, Beckwith’s comment was the inspiration for Bridgette’s post, which was published a year and four months prior to Ben Hart’s article and within which, as you see, Bridgette pointed out the possibility that it’s a surgical scar. I’m just sayin’, in the interest of fairness.

  9. I’m with ya….BROTHER Martin….

  10. Remember that General that got relieved of his nuclear command
    because of gambling?
    Alternate opinion, FWIW:

    Yes I know, the link is from
    which is a bit wacky,
    but interesting though.
    Various anecdotal reports suggesting an arranged catastrophic event in the next couple of days, as soon as Tuesday.

  11. oops that didn’t post so good,
    but if you go to and pick up the story about
    a false flag nuclear event, you can pick the link

  12. This so smelly it doesn’t really pass any scratch and sniff tests.
    About two days ago, a high ranking General, I am sorry but I didn’t catch his name, was relieved of his command – his command being described as no. 2 in the chain of command controlling our strategic nuclear weapons.
    The reason given is that it was discovered he had a gambling problem.
    That explanation is nonsense, For any individual in that position, everything would be known about him. The NSA probably knows every drink he ever drank, every magazine that he bought, and every girl he even went out with (and her friends too).
    The idea that it could be just discovered that he has a gambling problem is as ridiculous as uncovering Petraeus had affairs.
    Of course that has always been either untrue or known about.
    So why was he gotten rid of?
    Did he refuse to go along with some order that we would expect no member of our military would go along with?

  13. It cannot be the “Law of the Land” because it is an illegal law and should never exist.

    When Chief Jackass Roberts rewrote the law, he invalidated the original law. Since SCOTUS cannot rewrite laws, it’s now both illegal and unconstitutional because, if it is a tax, then it must have originated in the House – which it did not.

    The original Constitutional ruling was that the original ObamaCare was unConstitutional, The law should have been struck down and congress sent back to fix it.

    What if Roberts wrote that “PIGS CAN FLY?” Does it now mean that “All pigs must fly” because it is the “Law of the Land?”

    This is why States are passing laws against implementing an illegal Act.

    The “Law of the Land” is the constitution, and the Constitution says that ObamaCare is an unconstitutionally written law that has been rewritten another 40 times unilaterally by Obama.

    Next time someone gives you “The Paw of the Land,” crap, tell them that it IS the LAW of the LAND that the HOUSE can legally DEFUND ANY PROGRAM it votes to defund. If Harry Reid and Obama object, tough noogies.

    Of course, it takes members of the House who understand their constitutional responsibilities first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s