Recent Articles
Why Democrats Disenfranchise The Military
by Big Dog on Oct 28, 2008 at 06:20 Posted in Political 8 Comments
I wrote earlier about how the military (those members serving away from home) gets screwed during the elections when their votes are deliberately not counted. The men and women who defend this country and guarantee all the rest of us the right to vote and ensure we do it safely are routinely left out of the process. Earlier this year Barack Obama said that he would work to gain their trust and support. He wants them to know that he, with little leadership experience and no military experience, will be a better commander in chief than a decorated war hero like John McCain. Just ask Barack and he will tell you he is better qualified to lead our men and women in uniform.
The reason that Democrats work very hard to exclude the military vote is quite simple. Members of the military overwhelmingly support the Republican candidate. This video shows the results of a Military Times poll and the numbers are devastating for Obama.
This might explain why Fairfax Virginia is considering illegally suppressing the military vote. The Fairfax County Registrar (and possibly registrars in other localities) is rejecting Federal Write In Ballots that members of the military used if they were unable to get an absentee ballot. The FWAB is a safety net in case military members and their family members do not get absentee ballots but the registrar is placing restrictions on the ballots that violate federal law.
The ballots have not yet been rejected, they have been segregated while a decision is made. Seems to me that decision will be made when the regular ballots are counted. If the military vote could hurt their candidate then Democrats will fight to keep them from being counted. If the Democrat has a comfortable lead then the military vote will be graciously accepted.
This happens every election cycle and in places like Florida and Pennsylvania it is blatant and wrong. The members of the military deserve to have their votes counted and registrars should not be excluding them for bogus rules especially rules that violate federal law.
One nice thing is that a lot of these military folks are coming home and running for office. Many of them appeal to the people of their communities. With any luck, the Congress will be filled with genuine heroes who actually know how to accomplish something and are not afraid of working for a living.
Just look at Jack Murtha. He might get upset by Army Veteran William Russell.
Now that would be sweet.
Big Dog salute to Covertress.
Tags: absentee ♦ Democrats ♦ disenfranchise ♦ Military ♦ votes
Obama Hangs In Effigy, Racism Cited
by Big Dog on Oct 28, 2008 at 03:15 Posted in Political 4 Comments
OK, as far as I know there is no effigy of Obama hanging in the US. I would not be surprised if there were one or two but, if they exist, they must be pretty secret because if they were discovered we would have people screaming racism, Jackson and Sharpton would be marching and inciting riots and the media would have a field day discussing how racist someone must have been while demanding the justice department look into this hate crime. My friend Adam would tell me that I do not understand the history of racism and the symbolism of a noose (but I am expected to accept a burning Flag as an expression of speech regardless of the symbolism of that Flag). Even when I said it is near Halloween and it is only a decoration the cries of racism would be heard from afar.
However, we have an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose at someone’s home in California. The home even has an image of John McCain rising from a flaming chimney. People in buses ask the drivers to stop so they can get pictures and people who view it have a laugh over it. Isn’t it strange how it is OK when it is a white person who happens to be Republican?
I mean, if an Obama were hanging in effigy I am certain that there would be calls for it to come down and for investigations of hate crimes.
I have no real problem with the display. It is Halloween and this is America. What I have a problem with is the obvious double standard that exists. I know, there has been no Obama effigy so how can I say there is a double standard. Jena Louisiana and Baltimore Maryland, two places where nooses were hung, neither of which was racially motivated (the one in Baltimore was a black guy upset about something) but this did not stop the NAACP from coming down hard and demanding investigations (MD) and the camera hogs, Jackson and Sharpton from entering to stir things up (LA).
I hope someone hangs an Obama effigy so we can see how people respond. I am willing to bet that they will not laugh about it and that buses will not stop to allow pictures. I’d hang it myself but I live in the sticks. More crickets than people would see it.
No, it would not be well received if the Messiah were to be displayed in such a manner. His disciples would be up in arms.
Everyone knows that The One gets hung from a Cross…
Oh, and the picture. It is the only Hussein I could find with a noose.
Race Baiting Obama
by Big Dog on Oct 27, 2008 at 22:50 Posted in Political 2 Comments
An interview where he tells us how he feels about white people:
Listen as Obama discusses wealth redistribution. He chides wealthy whites living in the suburbs who don’t want to pay taxes for inner city kids to go to school.
Yes Barry, since not everyone can send their children to $10,000 a year private schools like you and the Mrs. then we should all pitch in and help out. How about taxes in the burbs pay for schools in the burbs and taxes in the inner cities pay for schools in the inner cities.
That would actually you to require people in the inner cities to work.
Imagine him as president.
As an aside, Joe Biden was defending Obama and his spread the wealth philosophy (Biden claimed Obama does not want to do that despite having him on tape twice saying it) and he said that Obama wants to give tax cuts to the middle class. The video is no longer available but he said something about the wealthiest one percent and paying up for the middle class to get a tax break. He never indicated that the wealthiest pay most of the taxes.
Obama wants to send money to people who pay NO taxes. That is not a tax cut, it is redistribution of wealth. Socialism.
Tags: Obama ♦ race baiting
Obama And The Constitution
by Big Dog on Oct 27, 2008 at 19:12 Posted in Political Leave a comment
Barack Obama is reported to have been a Constitutional law professor though every time I hear him speak about the Constitution I wonder which country’s document he knows well enough to teach. An audio from an interview done in 2001 was released over the weekend and in it Obama laments that the Warren Court did not discuss wealth redistribution as part of the civil rights movement. As it was stated in a Fox article, Obama thinks that when dispossessed people appealed to the high court for a place at the lunch counter, they should have appealed to have someone else pay for the meal. This has been Barack Obama’s MO for a long time. People who have more money should have some of it taken away and given to those who have less money. Socialism.
Most people already know that Obama is a Socialist. His followers know it but they want Socialism because they want to get something for nothing. The wealthier ones will say they want to pay more to help people along but in the end they will find a way not to do so. How many of them donate money to the treasury? People can do that so they could give even more than what they pay in taxes but it seems they have no real desire. Obama followers are the people who run around with their hands out (well one hand, the other is holding a cell phone) and love the idea of screwing some rich guy so they can have more of what they did not earn. The Obama campaign sent an email a few minutes ago asking people to take election day off for Obama. As if most of his followers even have jobs. The balance can probably take the day off but the warden won’t release them to help out.
So, in this interview Obama says that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties:
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Fox
I think that this professor is sadly mistaken with regard to the Constitution. Starting with the last thing; it is not the job of government, including the courts, to bring about redistributive change. The courts are well within their power to levy fines and rule in civil cases where money is awarded but they have no power and no authority to decide that one person makes more than another so he has to share. We do not suffer because a court did not rule in favor of Socialism, we suffer because liberals have made entire classes of people dependent on government so much so that many do not know how to take care of themselves, an individual responsibility.
Now, on to this idea about a document of negatives that does not tell you what government should do for you. The Constitution explains right up front the purpose of coming together and what the expected outcome of the established government is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is pretty clear to me that the reasons we formed the country are well laid out and the things that government will do, as established in “this Constitution” are clearly indicated and are not negatives. The reason we came together and formed this government as established in the Constitution is to form a more perfect union (not a perfect one), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote liberty. None of these are negatives. They clearly state what government will do for the people because it was formed by the people. One thing it certainly does not say is that we should redistribute wealth.
I am no law professor and I am certainly no Constitutional expert but I think I have a better grasp on this concept than Obama does. What I believe that Obama meant is that the Constitution is a negative document because it does not follow his idea of what government should do. He is upset because the court did not break free of the essential constraints established by the founders. First of all, if the constraints are essential why would we break free of them? Secondly, the founders knew well that government was a problem and not a solution. They were well aware of the problems with governments and what happens when people rule over the lives of others.
Our founders never intended for us to have a government as big as the one we now have. They never intended for government to be the provider of any more than that which is clearly enumerated in the document. Our founders would not recognize this country and would believe that they had failed if they were here to see how out of control it has gotten.
But for a Socialist like Obama, the founders put constraints on the ability of those like him to rule over the lives of others while keeping them oppressed, like Democrats do to their black constituents. So, like all liberals, he expected a court to right a perceived injustice over which the court has no authority.
The idea that the Supreme Court should have given us redistributive change (read wealth redistribution) should scare anyone who cares about personal freedom. Obama’s 2001 interview clearly verifies that he is a socialist and that his response to Joe the Plumber was no mistake.
This interview also gave us insight as to what kind of people he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The court recently ruled in favor of redistributive change in the Kelo decision. That was not popular and it did not settle well with most people because it gave government the right to take property from one group and give it to another. The kind of judges Obama would appoint will make that decision look good in comparison.
We have to stop this now.
Tags: civil rights ♦ Obama ♦ reditributive change ♦ socialism ♦ supreme court ♦ wealh redistribution
They Should Lock These Skinhead Morons Up For Life
by Big Dog on Oct 27, 2008 at 17:05 Posted in Political 13 Comments
I am the first (maybe not the very first) to admit that I do not like Barack Obama and do not want to see him become president but the last thing I want to see is for some moron to kill him. If he wins the presidency then, as an American, he will be my president and I will pray he does a good job for the country. I will also be tough on him and his policies.
But right now I am praying for him to lose and I mean lose in a legitimate election, not lose his life. Today, the ATF announced that a couple of moron skinheads planned to kill Barack Obama as well as 102 other blacks at an unnamed predominantly black school. No candidate should be killed to prevent victory. That is not how this country works and it is one of the things that makes us different than the Socialist countries Obama wants us to mimic. We try to hold fair elections and we let the people decide. That decision is done with a ballot not a bullet.
There is no place in our country for this kind of stupidity. These morons are a small minority but they should be taken seriously and dealt with harshly. If they had been successful the country would have been driven into chaos.
I propose they be tried, and if found guilty, spend the rest of their lives in prison, preferably one with a large black population.
Source:
Fox News
Tags: assassination plot ♦ morons ♦ Obama ♦ skinhead
Loading ...
Loading... 
