by Big Dog on May 22, 2013 at 16:37 Posted in Political
The Democrat supporters in the labor unions supported Obamacare and helped Obama and his minions get it passed. The law is a disaster and costs a heck of a lot more than advertised. Nancy Pelosi said it had to be passed to see what was in it and now that it has passed what we see is horrible. It will not work, it will cost a lot of money, it will not cover everyone as advertised and it will cause the rest of us to pay a lot more for insurance (and that was not supposed to happen either).
It will also cost people who thought they were getting free health care.
Many unions and other Democrat supporters were granted waivers. Friends of Barry were able to get an exemption from Obamacare. But a lot of supporters did not get waivers and are now getting bitten by the law they supported.
It looks like a bunch of labor unions that supported Obamacare, support they do not regret because it helped Obama, are unhappy about how it affects them and their members. One labor union wants the law repealed (or completely overhauled) while others just want changes that will benefit them.
I say screw them all. They supported it and they must either live under the law or work hard to get it repealed. NO SPECIAL EXEMTIONS OR CHANGES. They do not deserve special treatment from the law they supported. They must live by it like all of us or get it completely repealed.
No more of this good enough for you but not for me stuff.
You unions don’t like the way this affects you? Well neither do we and we don’t want to be forced to comply while you get special treatment.
Time to completely repeal this monstrosity or bend over and grab your ankles.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post
Tags: democrat tools, obamacare, repeal, support, unhappy, unions
by Big Dog on May 22, 2013 at 13:26 Political
Lois Lerner is the IRS official who was in charge of the Tax Exempt Division when it was illegally targeting conservative groups (among others). Her division fast tracked liberal organizations but caused all kinds of problems for conservative groups. The results of an IRS IG investigation were known last year prior to the presidential election but the results were suppressed in order to help Obama win reelection.
Make no mistake; this was all suppressed in order to help Obama. Think about it. If everything going on right now had been known and took place prior to the last election do you think Obama would have won? The media covered him on Benghazi and the IRS covered him on the brewing scandal where the IRS was used to intimidate groups opposed to him.
Lois Lerner is before a Congressional Committee today to answer questions about the scandal. Yesterday we learned that she planned to invoke her right against self incrimination under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. It appears that she revoked her right by making a statement but that has not stopped her from refusing to answer questions.
I believe that Lerner should be denied her 5th Amendment right not to incriminate herself. Why is that?
Well, I would normally say that she has the right and all rights should be upheld but in DC not all rights apply and among liberals not all rights are viewed as equal or relevant. For instance, regular citizens are not allowed to carry a firearm in DC. Hell, it is damn near impossible to own one there. We have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms but that right is routinely dismissed by liberals in DC.
Liberals do not support the Second Amendment and they are working very hard to take our firearms away. Elijah Cummings, the head Democrat on the committee, is an anti gun nut. He does not believe we have a right to keep and bear arms and he supports anti gun legislation. Since he refuses to uphold his oath then we should deny Lerner her right. Let’s assert she has no right and get the liberals on record indicating that rights are precious and need to be upheld. Lerner violated the rights of a lot of people with her illegal activities now it is time to deny any right she invokes and eventually deny her freedom.
Now that won’t generally work because one needs a brain to apply logic and common sense. The AP and some of the other media are coming around after the regime violated the First Amendment but we have a long way to go before we get them to recognize that the Second is as important as all the others.
In fact, it is more important. Without the Second there will be no protection for the others.
As of this writing Lerner got up and left the building.
She should have been arrested. Think about this folks. Would someone from the IRS allow YOU to take the 5th and then get up and leave during an audit? Do you think the groups her division targeted could have gotten away with this when the IRS asked them the intrusive and illegal questions?
I find it ironic that the people who ignore and violate the US Constitution each and every day have suddenly decided that the Constitution is important.
Notice how they use it to cover their rear ends when they have trouble.
I have two words that will get her to talk.
And keep in mind, this wench will be running the IRS division of Obamacare.
Who gave the orders?
Surprise, parties divided over scandal
No star witness?
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post
Tags: 5th amendment, crimes, irs, lies, lois lerner, Obama
by Big Dog on May 21, 2013 at 16:12 Political
With the Obama regime neck deep in scandals, all of which are real and deserve scrutiny, the Senate is forging ahead with immigration reform. Read that as backdoor amnesty because Senators from both parties are working on ways to promise us one thing and do another. They are also working to pass as much as they can while our attention is focused on the Obama criminal regime.
The Senators keep telling us that these illegals will not be allowed to get taxpayer funded assistance. No welfare for them when they come out of the shadows. This is absolute BS.
First of all, the Senate Judiciary Committee has passed an amendment to the immigration legislation that will allow illegals who are magically changed to legally here eligible for welfare.
Even if this were not the case they would still get it. How is that, you ask?
Quite easy! Under the misinterpreted and misapplied 14th Amendment any child born here to these illegals will be called a US citizen. The parents, though illegal, will apply for any benefits that a child who is a US citizen can get. These people will have welfare rolling in and spend it on whatever they want (they do this now so how will it be any different when we make them legal). Those who claim that they will get no welfare will then tell us that those kids are citizens and “deserve” this.
No, we did not lie because citizens are getting your money, not those illegals we waved our amnesty wand over.
The liberals in the Senate have already balked at removing the eligibility for the Earned Income Credit (EIC) on their taxes. This credit is a wealth redistribution scheme where people who pay no taxes (or very little that they usually get back) get money because they have children. It is a scheme that allows those who pay no taxes to get what was withheld back AND THEN SOME.
The Senate passed the amendment allowing welfare so it matters not but regardless of how they approach this, the illegals will be getting taxpayer money. If that is not bad enough, the alleged fines these people will have to pay (as in fines and back taxes) is all a ruse.
As pointed out, they pay little or no taxes. How can we force them to pay back taxes when they end up not having owed any taxes? No, this is all smoke and mirrors so the government can claim that these people paid their dues.
No restriction is allowed on all of these lawbreakers. The advocates for these illegals are screaming about an amendment making conviction of a third DUI grounds for deportation. No, we can’t have such a strict thing for people whose first act in this nation was to break our law.
Look, these folks can be wonderful and hard working pillars of their shadow communities but the reality is that they are all lawbreakers. They came here illegally and now want to be rewarded for their crimes. They expect special treatment over those who are trying to do things the right way.
I personally have a friend who is highly skilled and has a job offer pending at a hospital but she cannot get here because of all the illegals and non English speaking people gumming up the works. She has been waiting for years to come here and she would be an immediate asset. She is skilled in a profession that is in short supply and she has a job offer. She would start working and begin paying taxes immediately.
But she can’t come here because of all the future Democrat voters who are demanding they be rewarded for breaking the law and because liberals in Congress are listening to them.
We need to put systems in place to flush these folks out where they self deport or we send them packing and we need to change our laws so that those who try to come here the right way AND HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER are processed quickly.
We conservatives are not against immigration. We are against illegal immigration.
We are also against members of Congress who pander to people who break the law and expect to be rewarded for it.
I have an idea. Let’s evict the United Nations, tear down the building and ship the bricks to the south. Then round up the illegals and make them build a wall between them and the US with those bricks. Once it is done we will let them walk back home without being put in jail. In exchange for their labor we will allow them to apply for legal entry in 15 years, may never become a citizen and may never vote in an election.
Even Democrats won’t want them here if they can’t vote.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post
Tags: end run, illegal immigrants, Immigration, lies, Obama, Senate, taxes, welfare
by Big Dog on May 20, 2013 at 11:22 Political, Second Amendment
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
I have always believed that a point of view depends upon whose ox is being gored. With the Second Amendment the media are silent with regard to what our Founders intended and will help push an agenda for anti gun (and anti American) liberals. In order to ignore what our Founders said and what they clearly intended the media will gladly tell us that the Constitution is a living document and that it must evolve with the times. Things change for the media when the right under attack is the one that affects them the most.
The idea that the Constitution is a living document is an incorrect assessment of the Constitution. It is not a living document subject to interpretation based on a particular point in history. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Founders did not intend for it to be interpreted this way or that. What they did was give us a method to change it should things change or should new situations arise.
In any event, the media love to bash the Second Amendment and tell us how things have changed. That point of view changes when the right attacked is the one that affects the media.
In light of the Justice Department’s infringement of the AP’s First Amendment right the media, at least the AP, have suddenly decided that the Constitution is not a living document and that the infringement by the Justice department is wrong. Here is what Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP, had to say about the incident:
Pruitt told CBS’ ”Face the Nation” that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities.
“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” Washington Post
Well isn’t it interesting that Pruitt mentions what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? When it comes to the Second Amendment the media will tell us that things have changed, the framers could not have anticipated modern firearms (they did anticipate which is why they do not mention a specific type. People can have what the government has). They tell us that it is a living document and that we need to advance with the times. They dismiss any argument that claims if people are disarmed there will be no way to fight a tyrannical government as if the government is wonderful and would do no wrong.
It looks like the AP incident and Pruitt’s words now reveal that the media were wrong. The incident shows the tyranny of government and Pruitt indicated that this kind of tyranny leads to people only getting the information government wants it to.
I imagine it will be difficult for many anti gun zealots to see that these two issues are one in the same. Many, and I imagine Pruitt would be among them, will not see how the framer’s intent applies as much to the Second as it does to the First (and all parts of the Constitution for that matter). They will continue to dismiss the valid concerns of gun owners and tell us how we need to change with the times while crying foul over what the government did to them.
Mr. Pruitt, conservatives are on your side because we know all parts of the Constitution need to be defended against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know that the erosion of one right will lead to the erosion of another until the domino effect takes place. We wake up one day and are North Korea where people are disarmed, totally dependent on government and fed only the news government wants.
Mr. Pruitt, you and others in the media are responsible for this. You media folks pushed an agenda for liberals for decades. That was the anti gun agenda and it allowed for the slow erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. You folks in the media carried their water on this issue while cheerfully claiming that things have changed, this is a living document, the framers could not have anticipated the future, blah, blah, blah…
While you were helping with the slow erosion of our Second Amendment right you were putting in place the mechanism that allowed government to start going after the other rights. You allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent and now you are feeling the effect of your failure.
Without a Second Amendment there will be no protection for the First or any other. Without a well armed citizenry there will be government tyranny. You helped bring this upon us by ignoring or dismissing the framer’s intent when it came to our right to keep and bear arms.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
You in the media became stenographers for the liberals in government. You abandoned your obligation to the people and stopped being our watchdog. YOU enabled government to encroach further and further on our rights and into our lives. You failed us and now you are reaping what you have sown.
How about you get on board and start supporting the Second Amendment the way you want the First supported? How about you push the message of the people and tout the intent of our framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? What say we the people and you the media work together to keep government in check?
Let me help you out with it:
- “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
Quotes from the George Mason webpage of Walter E. Williams
I along with most conservatives do not like what took place with regard to the AP. We do not like the violation of a Constitutionally protected right because we support all of those rights. It is time for the AP and all other media outlets to get back to doing their jobs.
You can’t cry that your Constitutional right has been violated when you willfully ignore your responsibilities under that right.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post
Tags: ap, first amendment, government tyranny, Second Amendment
by Big Dog on May 16, 2013 at 16:32 Political
Researchers conducted a study and concluded that men who are physically strong (have more upper body strength) tend to be conservative and men who are physically weak tend to support welfare and wealth redistribution. This should come as no surprise when one looks at liberals. They are metrosexuals who need someone to care for them because they are not able to care for themselves.
It is obvious that liberals are a bit wimpy, have you ever seen Obama throw a baseball? Lest we forget he bowled a 37…
Why do you think liberals oppose firearms? These are tools of strength and liberal men can’t have that. They would prefer to sip frou-frou coffee and collect government assistance because they know they are not able to care for themselves.
Now I know there are some liberal men who are physically strong (I know many) and some conservative men who are physically weak (I know some of them too) but the research does not say the results are true in all cases, just that they tend to be so.
Look at the liberal men you see on TV and see if they appear to have more upper body strength or less and also look to see if they look a bit girly. It should not be hard to find a number of these liberal weaklings beyond Obama and Holder. Look around in everyday life and you can figure which men are self supporting and strong and which ones are weak and need to be taken care of.
The study links the finding to evolution and claims that humans have always been political but in the past governments and courts did not make decisions about the distribution. These were done through shows of strength. The strong were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor while the weak depended on others to help them out. If you were strong it was unlikely someone was going to take your stuff or that you would produce much of your own.
Why do you think liberals always fear conservatives coming to power? Why do you think that liberals run on fear that some mean conservative will take your free gubmint stuff if elected?
They are not strong so they fear that their lifeline, the stuff gubmint has extorted from the strong, will go away.
Liberals want big government give aways because they are unable to support themselves and they fear having to try.
Liberal men equals girly men.
The study showed no difference between conservative and liberal women. My study shows conservative women are smarter and better looking…
And libs, please don’t argue. As Al Gore would say, the science is settled…
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post
Tags: girly men, liberalism, lies, weakness