Obama’s Secret Stash

After Barack Obama was elected there was some event where people were lined up to receive taxpayer money because of their dire economic situations. A woman who was interviewed said she was there for the money. When asked where the money was coming from she said Obama. Then when asked where he was getting it she said she did not know, maybe from his stash.

Typical welfare queen who thinks there is some stash of money that is available for those who “need” it.

Perhaps though, she was on to something. Obamacare seems to have Obama’s secret stash contained in it. The Heritage Foundation reports that Obamacare contains appropriations of $105 BILLION to implement the law. These appropriations were inserted to bypass the appropriations procedure and were designed to prevent a future Congress from defunding the program.

This was a blatant move to circumvent the Constitutional method for appropriating funds and nothing more. Democrats probably had a feeling that Obamacare would end their reign as the majority and did this to allow the unconstitutional law to proceed.

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what was in it and that looks to be the case as we have now discovered an underhanded method to fund an unpopular and unconstitutional law.

Republicans can defund this but it will take extra work and diligence to get it right. The article at Heritage points out:

Conservatives can still save the nation from Obamacare’s bureaucratic kudzu, but they must act proactively. They must go beyond simply not providing funds for the implementation of Obamacare. CRS explains: “Precedents require that the language be phrased in the negative, for example, that ‘none of the funds provided in this paragraph (typically an account) shall be used for’ a specified activity.”

The Democrats leave messes and others have to clean them up. They are underhanded and sneaky and should never be trusted.

They made it difficult but not impossible to clean up the mess of Obamacare but the question is, why did they do it?

If it is so wonderful and everyone will love it then why did the Democrats in Congress do this?

They did it because they knew people opposed it and they wanted to ram it down our throats. In order to control the population they must control health care and they are well on their way. They are a third of the way to having everyone dependent on a government handout and if they can nail down health care they will have us all by the gonads.

We need to put an end to this now and we need to keep Democrats from ever having power.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

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.



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.

13 Responses to “Obama’s Secret Stash”

  1. Adam says:

    Bachmann tried to pass off this outrage as well and the story got slapped down by the facts.

    Yes, the money is real. No, it was not a secret. No, it was not done to bypass any Constitutional process or to prevent defunding.

    Next outrageous outrage, please.

    • Big Dog says:

      Next strawman Adam. I did not mention Bachman, I referred to The Heritage Group and what they said. And yes, I believe that since this method is not used to fund bills (money is usually appropriated separately) that it was done on purpose.

      I remember reading something about them trying to work it so it could not be changed by a future Congress.

      Regardless, you can take your Bachmann hatred and your misogyny (you should be ashamed at how you treat Bachmann and Palin) and and retire it.

      I also fail to see how the SPT slapped it down…

      Remember, you had to pass it to find out what was in it. By Pelosi’s standards it could not have been known beforehand.

      As usual though, you have no problem with spending money that does not belong to you and which I bet was not included in the cost of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL (in case you missed it) law. Or do you libs only listen to the courts when they agree with you?

      • Adam says:

        “I did not mention Bachman, I referred to The Heritage Group and what they said.”

        I’m not suggesting you mentioned Bachmann but you are both repeating the same story. I’m sure her source was your source as well. We both know how much you and your side admire unbiased sources like Heritage. If she’d have read the law she’d have known about it.

        “Regardless, you can take your Bachmann hatred and your misogyny … and retire it.”

        I don’t hate Bachmann or Palin. They’re fine, fine examples of the many conservative lunatics that you call your own. I hope to see them as President and VP candidates for the GOP.

        It’s funny though. I’ve caught you being a sexist pig to liberal women so often that now if I even mention a female conservative at this point you call me a sexist. That’s rich. I’m still calling for more creativity and effort on your part to muster up your own line of attack.

        “I also fail to see how the SPT slapped it down…”

        Then you didn’t read the article I cited.

        “Remember, you had to pass it to find out what was in it.”

        This coming from the guy who railed against distortion of McCain’s statements on 100 years in Iraq. You know that is a distortion of what Pelosi said and it’s in the same spirit you’ve been so critical of when it comes from liberals.

        “…and which I bet was not included in the cost of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL (in case you missed it) law.”

        Again, read the article I sited. Just give it a shot. And I guess I did miss the part where the SCOTUS struck down the health care bill as unconstitutional.

        • Big Dog says:

          I accuse you of misogyny because you have taken every opportunity to accuse me based on far less. Your idea is that if I attack a person who is liberal and female then I am being misogynistic. Therefore, you must be the same.

          It is tough when you are held to your own standards.

  2. Adam says:

    Funny. I guess I can’t repeat the things you have said about women on your own site. It must have kicked it as spam and not even moderated it.

    The truth is you want us to believe that I have called you a sexist pig for no reason when you have a clear history of sexist attacks on women. Maybe you even believe you’re not a sexist in your own mind.

    Your quotes speak for themselves.

    • Big Dog says:

      In order to be sexist I would have to have that attitude toward all women. I do not. There are some who I described in terms I feel are accurate. Because I talked about a few people does not mean that I am demeaning the entire class. You know that and you know the definition of a sexist but you still harp on. If my words about a few individuals makes me sexist then your words about a few makes you the same.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      • Adam says:

        “There are some who I described in terms I feel are accurate.”

        That’s like a person saying he isn’t racist because he only uses racially charged language against a few black people but he’s fine with the rest of them. Give me a break. You know that’s a load of crap.

        “If my words about a few individuals makes me sexist then your words about a few makes you the same.”

        Please let me know when you’ve found even a single quote from me calling conservative women all the nasty things you call liberal women. Can you find even one?

        • Big Dog says:

          So if a person says a woman was a bit*h then that person is sexist? None of the terms is used to describe a whole class of people as the N word would be.

          Plenty of people have used terms that people would consider racist (Biden, Hillary, Reid) but everyone defends them as not being racist. Under your definition they would have to be racists.

          I think (or at least I hope) you know the difference between a personal attack and an attack on an entire class of people.

          Then again, I might be asking a bit too much.

          • Adam says:

            I’m not suggesting that doing one or two racist or sexist things means you are a racist or a sexist necessarily. But you have a long and documented history of attacking liberal women based on their appearance and their personal lives as opposed to the quality of their idea or their politics. It’s the disgusting behavior of a sexist pig and if you want to continue to insist you aren’t one of those sexist pigs then I suggest you stop using such hateful language.

  3. Big Dog says:

    As if you, a snot nosed punk, gets to decide what is sexist and what is not. The last thing I need is a kid my son’s age telling me how to act or how things are defined.

    I suggest that if you don’t like hateful language then you should stop listening to liberals who want you to get in their faces or bring a gun if they have a knife. You want hateful, your idols are full of hateful.

    My “documented” history is against a very small group of people some of whom happen to be women. I said a woman politician whored herself out and you say it is sexist but I used that phrase to describe male politicians as well.

    You see, you THINK you know what you are talking about but you don’t.

    As far as it goes though, if you don’t want to be treated like a snot nosed punk, quit acting like one.

    • Adam says:

      “The last thing I need is a kid my son’s age telling me how to act or how things are defined.”

      Obviously I touched a nerve on that one. Look, I didn’t say the nasty things you said, I just documented them. Don’t play the victim here when obviously you have a problem treating women fairly when you disagree with them.

      “I said a woman politician whored herself out and you say it is sexist but I used that phrase to describe male politicians as well.”

      Right. How many men do you call sluts, skanks, and cunts because you hate their political views? How many men do you suggest need to get laid so they’re not testy or need to get a sex toy? Let me know when you find those examples. Also I’m waiting on you to find examples of me doing the same to conservative women.