Category Archives: Political

Republicans Need To Take No Prisoners

The Republicans are in control of the House and the Senate and on the 20th they will also have the White House so I do not want to hear anything about compromise or working together or any other blather that involves appeasing Democrats.

Every time Republicans are in charge the Democrats tell us there is a mandate to work together. Bull squirt. There is no such mandate. The mandate is that Trump and the Republicans are charged with changing things from the screwed up mess the Democrats have made over the last eight years. If the mandate was more of the same Hillary would have won.

There obviously MUST be a mandate to do everything different or else a man who never held a political office would not have beaten a seasoned criminal, err politician like Clinton.

Democrats do not want to work together and when they win they make sure to let us know their mandate is to ignore us. Hell, when they lose they don’t want to work together. Take upchuck Schumer for example.

For the past ten months he has been screaming that the Senate needs to do its job and give Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court a vote. Now that Trump won Schumer is vowing not to confirm Trump’s nominee (whoever that will be).

Now it bothers me not one bit that Republicans kept Obama’s pick out off the Court and it won’t bother me that Schumer will try to do the same with Trump’s, with one small difference. I did not oppose what Republicans did, Schumer did. Now he is saying he will do that which he opposed and every liberal who screamed at what Republicans did will back Schumer 100%.

I hope the Democrats do all they can to obstruct. I want Republicans to engage in no holds barred, no prisoners taken, all out warfare. I want them to exercise the nuclear option for every one of Trump’s picks for any position. When Democrats complain they can be told to sit down and shut up because they enacted the nuclear option.

Then I want Republicans to extend the nuclear option to include Supreme Court nominees and push through all of Trump’s picks. The Democrats will squawk but they opened that door. Hell, if we are lucky Trump will be able to replace every aging POS liberal currently on the SCOTUS and keep the Court from liberal influence for a generation or two.

I also want to see the Republicans use reconciliation to get rid of Obamacare. It is true that Democrats did not use it to PASS Obamacare but they used it to get things thrown in after it was passed. They also used parliamentary procedures to get the damn thing passed in the first place. They thought they had it in the bag until Scott Brown won the seat held by Ted Kennedy. Once Brown won they decided to use the Senate bill and craft the House to match it as their reconciliation process. Hell, the bill did not even originate in the House which violates the Constitution.

Republicans should dismantle Obamacare (which has been anything but affordable) and get rid of it quickly.

There are, of course, stories about Republicans being worried that this will go away and there will be nothing to replace it and they will get blamed for taking away people’s health care. I believe this is the case because Republicans are basically cowards who are afraid of looking like the bad guy.

I would like to see it go away and NOT be replaced. Government has no business in providing or facilitating the health care of citizens. It has no Constitutional duty or authority to establish or pay for the health care of people so it should not be involved in it.

The same holds true for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid but those were pushed in and no one challenged them. Now they are nearly impossible to get rid of even though getting rid of them would be better for people.

The Democrats knew once people got a taste of the free stuff (which is not free) they would balk at anyone trying to take it away. People feel entitled to things and they feel particularly entitled to things that others have to pay for. Bernie Sanders is an example of this mindset.

I think people should be responsible for their own health care and government’s only duty is to ensure that companies are unencumbered in pursuing the business of those who wish to purchase insurance.

In any event, the longer this monstrosity is around the harder it will be to get rid of and the more expensive it will become.

It is time to turn back all the things the liberals have done. It is time to live in accordance with the Constitution and it is time to shut little whiners like upchuck Schumer up from the get go.

Make him sit in the corner and play with his safety pin while the adults set about fixing things.

Republicans, be ruthless or we will send you packing.

In other words folks, we have them down. Time to step on their throats.

Related:
The New York Times (note how they make it seem like a bad thing when Republicans do it)

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

There Is No National Popular Vote

The left is continuing its assault on freedom by whining about the last election. Today the electors will convene in each state capitol and cast their votes and when all is said and done Donald Trump will officially be the next president of the US. The electors selected to do this have been harassed non stop by the left because they do not want Trump in there and are fighting to make that so.

They are also convinced that the electoral college system is outdated and cost Hillary the election. They believe the winner of the national popular vote should be the president. The way it is now is no democracy, they say.

First of all we are not a democracy. Second of all and just as important is that Hillary Clinton DID NOT win the national popular vote because we DO NOT have a national election. A national popular vote insinuates that there is one great big nationwide election and that Hillary won that but we do not have such an election.

We have 51 individual elections (each state and DC). The winner of each individual election in each individual state gets the electoral votes for that state (usually winner take all but different in a few states).

So Donald Trump won the popular vote in enough states to get more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidential election. Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote in enough states to become president.

The idea that she won the national popular vote is based on adding the totals of all 51 INDIVIDUAL elections and then declaring her the winner. Since we do not have a national election the total for all the states does not matter. The electoral college is in place to prevent a scenario where a heavily populated part of the nation could determine the outcome of an election even if the rest of the nation wanted otherwise just as it did in this case.

Hillary Clinton won by a huge margin in California so much so that it gave her the advantage in the total of all 51 elections. If California were removed from the totals then Trump has the highest vote total of the remaining 49 states and DC. In other words, if we had a national election (the democracy the left wants) then California would get to decide the president even though the other 49 states and DC combined wanted Trump.

By using the electoral system we ensure that all states have a say in the matter

The reality, whether they want to face it or not, is that Hillary did not win the national popular vote because we do not have a national election.

That should settle the debate once and for all but it will not because liberals are like little children who throw tantrums until they get what they want.

If only we could get them to hold their breath until there is a change…

Related:
Marketwatch

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Barack Obama Is A Sexist

In a speech while campaigning for Hillary Clinton (instead of doing his actual job), Barack Obama presented a thinly veiled message that men who do not vote for Hillary are sexists. He did not come right out and say that. No, instead he said we have not had a woman president and I think you guys know why.

If Obama thinks men who do not vote for Hillary are sexist then he is a sexist.

Remember, Obama ran against her in 2008 so he did not vote for her. He blocked her from getting into office. Let’s face it, if she had been the nominee then she probably would have beaten McCain. At least she would have had a good chance since this was BES (Before Email Scandal).

Funny though, Obama challenged her and beat her thus denying her the chance to become president. He must be, by his own definition, a sexist. He is already, by his own definition, unpatriotic.

Obama also did not mind beating McCain and his running mate, a woman, so he is a double sexist because we have never had a female VP either.

It is also important to note that all the things Obama is saying about Hillary and why she is so great are the exact opposite of the things he said about her when she was his opponent. He told us she was not qualified to be president. Now he says she is more qualified than he or Bill Clinton ever were.

In other words folks, not only is Obama unpatriotic and a sexist, he is also a lying sack of feces.

I also pose this question. When Obama ran any opposition to him was considered racist because he is black. He is out there opposing Trump and insulting him. Since Trump is white does that make Obama the racist?

Gunline

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

This Is What Happens When You Pay Ransom

Barack Obama paid 400 million dollars to his buddies in Iran so they would release Americans they were holding. The longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not paying ransom was ignored by Obama as he sent a plane load of money to Iran.

He claims it was a coincidence but the Iranians said it was paid to release the hostages and the hostages said the plane they were on was not allowed to leave until the plane with the money arrived.

The State Department put out a warning to Americans yesterday (22 August 2016) telling them to avoid travel to Iran because Americans are being targeted for capture there.

That was pretty easy to see coming. You get more of what you pay for. Give in to demand for ransom and there will be more incidents of abductions leading to requests for more ransom money.

If you paid it once there is no reason for the bad guys to think you won’t pay it again.

Why Americans would even go to Iran escapes me. If you go there and get captured then you are on your own if the only way to get you back is to pay a ransom. We will keep negotiating for your release but we are not going to pay because it will encourage the abductions of others.

At least that is how it was until Obama gave in and provided a state sponsor of terror with 400 million dollars.

Just think what that kind of money would have done for the folks in Louisiana…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

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