Aliens Attack the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

In view of Obama’s pick for U.S. Regulatory Czar, I have truly been converted today to the reality of aliens from outer space. I say this because I have no earthly idea where a person would come up with such alien statements and beliefs as this person does. Because the Sunstein Doctrine is so completely foreign to the substance and culture of this nation, it clearly demonstrates proof that Obama is pursuing his own agenda and not that of the American people. I am 100% certain that this guy’s beliefs are indeed foreign.

Introducing Cass Sunstein, the nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This name accompanied by his bloodcurdling doctrine should cause you to shudder. The fact that he would rape and pillage the first five Constitutional Amendments is only the tip of the iceberg. Read on to see this freak of nature at his best.

In 2007, during a speech given at Harvard, Sunstein proposed that hunting be banned throughout the United States. Ok, I can try to give him credit for wanting to save the lives of the hunting partners of Dick Cheney, but unfortunately his mutant beliefs only get more far fetched from here.

He believes that the internet is “anti-Democratic” because users can filter out any objectionable material. As such he believes that the required use of technology by all citizens is necessary to ensure that a site contains “fair and balanced” information and that such a requirement should be put into play as soon as possible. Does this mean that every site that communicates sound Christian values should also be required to communicate the thoughts and opinions of Satanic cults? Does this mean if a site displays a picture of a virtuous woman that that same site must give the viewer access to porn as well? And yes, Sunstein has gone so far as to declare that non-profit groups should be required to publish counter positions to theirs on their own websites. That’s right. If Mother Teresa had a web site, she would be required to provide information on Hitler as well.

He also believes that we should be required to use software which would prevent anyone from sending an e-mail in which the SOFTWARE determines holds “uncivil” comments. Awww. Ain’t that cute? These poor little defenseless politicians must have had their feelings hurt by all that was said during the Tea Parties. They need a software program to protect them from hearing any dissenting opinions. He proposes that this software double-ask the sender if they really want to send an “uncivil” e-mail message. And if they do, then the e-mail must be filed away for 24 hours for a mandatory cooling off period. Oh I get it. The First Amendment gives free speech, but only if it’s not offensive to anyone. Right.

In his book “Radical to Robes” Sunstein writes that he believes that all gun control legislation is constitutionally congruent. He believes that the U.S. Supreme court “got it wrong” in determining that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals.

Ok, here’s a real loony one. In his 2004 book entitled “Animal Rights” he wrote that he believed that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …" Holy cow! (pun intended) I’m all about protecting animals, but providing them with a public defender at the expense of tax dollars is laughable! If you hurt my dogs, I will indeed defend them, but where will it stop? We already have an over burgeoning court system. Criminals get off for murder of a human being? What additional justice are we to expect when a person sends an uncivil e-mail to Mickey Mouse? Are the lawyers not making enough money? Do they need to start chasing Fido rather than ambulances? Where does the U.S. Constitution stand on giving animals the same rights as humans? Oh yeah. It doesn’t. And besides, how can we expect to preserve and protect the Constitutional rights of animals when we are proving ourselves incapable or unwilling to preserve and protect the rights of legal, law-abiding American citizens? If you give animals constitutional rights, then you must give them consequences as well. Will we expect law enforcement to release Shack, the vicious Pit Bull because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights?

To me, here is the most horrific aspect of all of this. Read what Obama thinks of this individual, specifically in relation to his ability to uphold the Constitutional rights and freedoms of our citizens: “As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team." I have no doubt that he is a dear friend of Obama’s based on this information. However, it’s clear that Sunstein knows about as much about the constitution as Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garofalo know about civility.

To completely prove my case of this alien-born, anti-Christ, Sunstein states “limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.” Yup. We’re just dumb human beings incapable of making the “right” choice if we are presented with so many choices. You’re right Sunstein. Americans simply have too many choices, and as such we’re certainly making the wrong decisions. But I ask you, why stop at the internet, Sunstein? Why not reel in those villainous makers of feminine products as well? Slim, mini, super, extra super, pink, blue, white, mega, etc. How is a sane person to choose? I find the vast amount of tampons for women completely overwhelming and sending my poor husband out to retrieve the proper box could result in a 3rd World War. I’m sure limiting our choices between good, bad, evil, and truly in our best interests was exactly what the Founding Father feared in declaring ultimate freedom from an oppressed government. Too bad they didn’t declare freedom from beings from Mars as well. I’d feel a lot safer now.

I think the best science fiction writers of our time will find merit in the Sunstein Doctrine. After all, it will provide great fodder for their story lines. What’s the saying? “Truth is stranger than fiction.” We might as well prepare ourselves for the same kind of alien invasion represented in the Will Smith movie, “Independence Day”, if we are to tolerate a man in such a controlling a position as this.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Baptist Pastor vs. Border Patrol

By Kellene Bishop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

This video of Steve Anderson is just over 8 minutes long. The contents of it are disturbing to me from a standpoint of freedom, but even more disturbing to me are the comments of ignorant fools in response to this video. Lest any more of you should grossly err in your judgment of this situation, allow me to enlighten you.

The time to stand up for your rights is ANY and EVERY time they are being violated.

One person on YouTube commented that this person should not have “taken the law into his own hands.” Sorry folks. The law is FOR the people, not issued in hopes that power-drunken agents such as these will honor it. It is for ALL of the people. It is your DUTY to know what the laws are and push back. For too long the overwhelming majority has been apathetic to their rights under the laws, and this is exactly why such atrocities of law have occurred in this situation. Do you naively believe that only the military is empowered to support and sustain our Constitutional rights? How is that fair that our soldiers have to lose their lives to defend our freedoms, but every citizen in this country doesn’t have to do their part as well? As insignificant as this act may seem to others in the nation, in my opinion there is virtue and righteousness in affirming our rights under all circumstances.

Another ignoramus commented that “from what he was able to find out, this guy isn’t a very good person.” Others accused him of being a “know-it-all” and a pompous @$$, etc. Guess what, folks? The rights of the U.S. Constitution are ensured for all people, including someone who may come across to some as a jerk. That’s why some personalities are permitted to grace your television sets and radio stations. There is no U.S. law which states you must comply nicely when your rights are or are not being violated. There is no requirement that you speak softly, etc. So whether you support the personality traits of this person is completely unimportant. As an American, his rights are his rights regardless.

As the result of his FIRST Amendment right (which is not a coincidence that such a right is in the first position of all outlined rights in our Constitution) this individual has the right to free speech. Thus anything he may have said which would make a person angry is unacceptable grounds for the actions of these so-called agents.

Several foolish posters commented that “all this guy had to do was answer the questions.” Again. They are wrong. If a police officer comes to your door and begins asking you questions, you are under NO obligation to answer such questions. Answering questions by law enforcement is not a requirement. In fact, in accordance to the Fifth Amendment, we have the right to not say ANYTHING which may incriminate us. Even the Miranda Rights reaffirm such. Not answering questions does not negate any of your other rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Another fool posted a supposition that Congress has granted the Border Patrol broad authority of search and seizures. Guess what. I don’t care if the President himself gave the Border Patrol agents permission to behave this way, it’s illegal! Pure and simple. No law can be passed in this country which is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. The only way that this act could be made “legal” is if there was a Constitutional Amendment fully ratified. Congress also recently passed an enormous bill without even reading it. Does that make it right or legal? No. It’s malpractice. And such a foolish comment flies in the face of all of those who have died so that we may now possess those rights. Until I see a Congressman who will pay the “uttermost farthing” to protect my rights as did our Founding Fathers, then such a Congressman does not receive any honorable attentions from me. Too many of our Americans today are sheep. They feel that simply because the President declares something, or the Congressmen say it and then sign it, that it’s law. Sorry folks. All laws MUST be in alignment with the U.S. Constitution. New laws can specify, clarify, and even give consequences for violating the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot circumvent or violate them.

Then there are the masses of individuals who would judge this person because he’s a Baptist Pastor. He’s accused of being difficult by being non-compliant. Boy howdy am I ever GRATEFUL for my non-compliant Founding Fathers, as well as my non-compliant Savior who did NOT “save” the Jews based on their short-sighted expectations and demands. Too many individuals wrongly presume that as a Baptist pastor, he should be a mouse and comply. Sorry, you’d be wrong again to presume such. This guy did not spew foul language at these agents. He did not “get in the way” of their tazers and metal batons. These “agents” made a choice to act in the manner in which they did. As such, Jesus would condemn them, not the person upon whom they acted. It’s alarming to me just how many folks believe that standing up for your Constitutional rights is an act of deviance in the Christian world—especially in light of the fact that God inspired the men who served as our Founding Fathers of this nation. God is fully invested in our rights being upheld in this nation.

The fact that the dog was brought into this as grounds for the search is laughable as well, since the Fourth Amendment requires that probable cause be established by “oath or affirmation.” Clearly Fido didn’t say anything. He was merely used as a pawn for their designs. Isn’t it ironic that law ENFORCEMENT officials don’t care much for a person who actually helps them understand the laws of which they are to enforce? Case in point, if a 31-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old girl, even if it’s consensual, it’s illegal. Coinciding with that, even if the American people are willing to have their rights raped and pillaged “consensually” it’s still illegal and in direct violation of our Bill of Rights. Even honest citizens with nothing to hide are violated whenever we consent to the erosion of our rights and liberty.

Another aspect of this incident is the excessive force. Hmmm… how many drug traffickers have made it across the border without their windows bashed in, or having been cut, tazed, and battered? Even if this guy WAS a drug dealer, they are NOT permitted to treat him as such. That’s right. Even if he was verbally belligerent, had a couple of kids and some drugs in the back of the car, the Border Patrol are not permitted to handle the situation the way they did. This constitutes “unreasonable search.” But hey, it’s not unreasonable seizure because they found NOTHING. (Although, due to the damage they inflicted on the vehicle, they did in fact illegally “seize” this man’s car.)

This person is rumored to have had a “run-in” with Border Patrol previously in which he also refused to answer their questions. However, posting a video on YouTube complaining about your previous treatment with Border Patrol does not give an “agent” free reign to violate your Constitutional rights. Plain and simple, Folks.

While it may take a while to get this all sorted out, anytime a person legally defends their rights of this nation, they have my wholehearted support. I may not agree with their personality traits, their religion, or their other beliefs, but they are indeed correct in asserting those rights.

Bottom line, if you will not stand up for the Constitution, who will?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.