Main Content RSS FeedLatest Entry

Texas, Ignore The Court And Do What You Want

Texas has had a strict voter ID requirement since 2011 and the Obama administration challenged it in court. Today the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates the Voting Rights Act and instructed a lower court to make changes to fix the discriminatory effect of the law with as little impact on this year’s election as possible.

The Constitution describes voting in several amendments and they state Congress can write laws to carry out the things described in those amendments. Those amendments talk about when a right to vote can be denied or abridged. This is not the case with regard to ID laws. No one is denying or abridging the right to vote. A person must simply provide ID to do so.

As liberal courts are eager to state with regard to the Second Amendment, reasonable restrictions can be applied to it and to all rights. That is why courts have allowed restrictions to be applied to the Second Amendment (most of which are actually unconstitutional). So if reasonable restrictions can be applied (most people would not argue that a background check for a non-private firearm sale is unreasonable) then it is not out of the question to require ID to vote. It is a REASONABLE restriction.

Evidently, the law is discriminatory because it has a short list of IDs that are acceptable. The list looks about the same as the list required to prove citizenship when applying for a job. Does this mean the requirement to show ID (and prove citizenship) when applying for a job is discriminatory?

There is nothing discriminatory about asking for ID before allowing someone to vote, period. It matters not what any court or President says about it, asking for an ID is not discriminatory at all.

The unions Obama loves so much require IDs before anyone can vote in union elections. One must show an ID to get on a plane and that is not deemed discriminatory.

Neither is showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, registering kids for school or sports programs and it is definitely not deemed discriminatory to show ID to get into a government building.

None of these acts requiring ID would be deemed discriminatory based on the types of ID deemed acceptable…

Texas should probably tell the court thanks but we will do things our way. This is our law and this is what we are going to do. If you want to vote here then you need to follow the law, period.

In other words, Texas should tell them to stick it because ID laws are reasonable and the list of acceptable IDs is not prohibitive.

As an aside, please don’t blast me with the idea that poor people can’t get an ID (even from the short list). Practically everyone needs an ID for some aspect of life and the poor seem to be able to get an ID to get welfare…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Recent Entries

Will The Real Barry Obama Please Stand Up?

Just some thoughts on Obama and his response to police officers who have been murdered at the hands of terrorists from the terror group, Black Lives Matter.

Before I get to his words I would like to point out that Obama is either very stupid, blind, or deliberately ignorant of reality. Every time one of these things happens the murderer tells us why he did it (or tells us why he is going to do it) but Obama (or should we call him oblivious) says “we don’t really know the killer’s motivation.” It is going on now with the cop murders and it happens when there is a terror attack by ISIS or some other Islamic terrorist. They scream we hate America and we are doing this in the name of ISIS and Allah to avenge (fill in the blank) and Obama tells us we don’t know why they did it…

Hell, the guy could hire a plane to tow a banner saying why he did it, put it on all social media, give interviews with the media and send out cards in the mail and Obama would tell us we don’t know why he did it…

Of course, Obama is always ready to tell us why cops did what they did long before any facts are in. He might say they acted stupidly….

Now on to the response from Obama on the latest terror attack by BLM.

Obama said that we need to stop using inflammatory rhetoric:

We don’t need inflammatory rhetoric. We don’t need careless accusations thrown around to score political points or to advance an agenda. We need to temper our words and open our hearts … all of us.

This would be the same Obama who said this about how he would counter Republican attacks:

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

I am pretty sure that this remark would be considered inflammatory and designed to score political points…

But, but, but Obama is a great guy. Look at how he supported the Dallas police officers by referring to himself a lot and by telling us how cops can be better and that guns are the problem…

He even had some words about attacking police officers after the BLM terrorist murdered three in Baton Rouge:

Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible.

Obama is the one who has blood on his hands. He has blamed the police for these issues and he has been one of the first to blame them when a black person is shot by police (most times the shooting is warranted). He is the one who fans the flames of racism and victimhood. He might tell people that attacks on police are an attack on all of us but he blames the police for this mess and says they need to admit they are the problem:

There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters.

And if police organizations and departments acknowledge that there’s a problem and there’s an issue, then that, too, is going to contribute to real solutions. And, as I said yesterday, that is what’s going to ultimately help make the job of being a cop a lot safer. It is in the interest of police officers that their communities trust them and that the kind of rancor and suspicion that exists right now is alleviated.

You cops got that? You have a problem and you have to admit it in order to be safe. This kind of talk gives the radical BLM terrorists their cues. They hear what Obama said and they don’t hear cops saying they have a problem so to them it means they can attack because Obama said cops can’t be safer until they fess up.

Obama has caused a lot of this strife. He has fanned the flames of racism and he has encouraged the violence that is taking place. He started an open season on law enforcement and his words still reflect his belief that they are the problem.

It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Keep in mind though, the violence you see is caused by liberals who follow the ideology of Obama and his ilk. Any violence at the Republican convention will be caused by liberals, not the Republicans…

God help the US because we sure need it after eight years of Satan in the White House.

Sources:
WSJ
MRCTV
AP

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Note To Libs: Muskets Were Weapons Of War

Liberal LogicEvery time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.

Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.

The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).

The firearm used was not an AR 15 though anti gun nuts keep calling it that and showing pictures of one when they appeal to the masses. They want control and nothing else.

Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.

Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.

The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.

It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.

When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.

Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.

When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.

The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.

Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.

I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.

Alan Grayson, a moron politician and wife beater from Florida, claimed that these firearms could shoot 700 rounds a minute. A semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger. To shoot 700 rounds a minute the shooter would have to squeeze the trigger almost 12 times a second and that does not include the time to change magazines. Misinformed people are easy to control and government is doing the misinforming because it wants to control people. Though in this case it is likely Grayson, who is unintelligent, does not know.

First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.

Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.

The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.

Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.

How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?

The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.

We will not comply.

MOLON LABE

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

The Plame Game

Remember back during the G W Bush Administration when some obscure CIA agent named Valerie Plame had her cover blown by Scooter Libby? Remember all the uproar from the left and the demands that Libby be frog marched in chains for disclosing the fact that Plame was a covert agent?

It matters little that the entire deal was a hit on Libby. It is known that Richard Armitage leaked the info and that the special prosecutor knew it but told him to remain silent about it. It is also true one could call the CIA and ask to be connected to Plame and they would ring you through.

But politics needed to be played and the left was all giddy as it dreamed of Libby in jail for disclosing the identity of a covert operative.

I wonder how these very liberals feel today knowing that Hillary Clinton’s home brew server set up put CIA agents at risk. I wonder if they care that the covers of these folks and the nature of operations might have been compromised as a result of Hillary’s decision to break the law and run a server at home all the while allowing classified information to run through it so prying eyes from around the world could hack into it.

Yes, Hillary might be responsible for this data leak as well but will the liberals hold her accountable? Will a special prosecutor be put into place to indict her on charges of disclosing the secret identities of spies in addition to the other crimes she has committed?

You know better. The left does not care about the law or this nation (unless the laws can be used to go after conservatives). It only cares about power and the toadies who support the left only care about getting “free” stuff.

Hillary could cut the head off a newborn baby and drink its blood and the left would still support her. This little wrinkle will not stop her because the left does not hold its own accountable.

Remember, to these people the ends justify the means so what Hillary did was A-OK.

It would be nice to see her frog marched out of DC and locked away for her crimes but not until Obama is out of office.

We don’t want him to pardon her…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Float Like A Butterfly Run Like A Coward

This week the world is mourning the death of Mohammad Ali (aka Cassius Clay) the former heavyweight boxer who converted to Islam and then refused to be conscripted during the Viet Nam War.

There are many stories about Ali being played over and over on the sports shows and there is no doubt the man was a great boxer and an entertaining person. He was also an advocate for several causes and he did a number of good deeds, as outlined in these stories, throughout his life.

All of this is well and good but he refused to serve his nation, the very nation that allowed him to enjoy success. He claimed to be a conscientious objector (but not until the standards were changed and he was eligible to be drafted – he was originally classified as too dumb) and that he would not violate his religious beliefs (anyone who sees Islam on a daily basis knows that fighting is right up their alley).

First off, there are plenty of jobs that CO’s can do in the military that will allow them to serve and remain true to their faith, if indeed their faith is at issue. Ali was first classified as not smart enough to serve but when the standards were lowered and he was inducted he chose not to participate at all, he disobeyed the law and he let better men than he go off and do the nation’s bidding while he stayed home and made money boxing.

Well, for a time anyway. The government would not let him box for a period of time because of his refusal.

The second point deals with the idea that he can’t go to war and fight people. He beat people up for a living. Boxing is not a peaceful sport and engaging in it causes harm (as evidenced by Ali in his later years) so claiming to be non-violent to avoid war rings kind of hollow. Then again, his objections were that he could not fight Christian wars or wars of unbelievers and could only fight a war declared by Allah or his messenger.

Ali was also quite the racist. Read some of his quotes from the time and it is easy to see. Hell, people call Trump a racist (Mexican is a nationality not a race) for remarks about one judge. Ali made remarks about whites in general or other black folks being used by the white man. Hell, look at what he said about Frazier…

Rocky Marciano was a heavyweight boxer in the 1950s. He served in WWII and boxed for the Army IN ADDITION to his regular Army job.

While many folks have changed their views on Ali and his draft dodging over the years I am not one of them. He turned his back on the nation and ignored the law.

For me that act defines him more than anything else he did.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.