Recent Articles
More Government Nonsense
by Big Dog on Mar 15, 2010 at 18:55 Posted in Political 1 Comment
I imagine that US Embassies around the world require the finest dishes so that when they entertain people from around the world they do not look like a bunch of slackers serving wine in paper glasses. So I can certainly understand the need for the embassies to have fine crystal glasses in which to serve beverages.
I can’t understand why we need to spend 5.4 MILLION dollars on such glasses. It would seem to me that we could get some kind of bulk discount for buying that much crystal.
Secretary of State Clinton’s State Department has ordered the glasses and the kicker is that the order will not benefit any American business. The small business through which they were ordered turned around and subcontracted to get them from an overseas company.
There is a company in the US, right in Clinton’s “native” New York that makes glasses to the specifications required but they will not receive the money.
Instead 5.4 MILLION US taxpayer dollars will go to a company in another country.
Though this is not part of the stimulus it would seem that contracting an American company to provide them would help shore up the business and provide workers with job security.
It is obvious that people in government do not think when they do things.
How else can anyone explain such a boneheaded move? I guess no thinking is required when you are spending money that is not yours…
And Democrats accuse Republicans of outsourcing jobs overseas…
Source:
New York Post
Tags: crystal ♦ Embassies ♦ glassware ♦ Hillary Clinton
Keep Government Out Of Your Home
by Big Dog on Mar 14, 2010 at 14:22 Posted in Political 17 Comments
People are free to use their homes for anything they desire so long as what they are doing is legal. Once law enforcement is aware of illegal activities then it is obligated to act. However, people are free to do anything in their own homes.
People can host Tupperware parties, scout meetings, Thanksgiving dinner, football parties, pool parties, wakes, bachelor parties, wedding receptions, Amway sales meetings, Homeowner’s Association meetings, socials and birthday parties.
Apparently, one can do all these in his home and have no problem (unless the activity disturbs the peace) but one thing that cannot be done, at least in Gilbert Arizona, is for church groups to meet in a private home. In Gilbert, members of the local church host Bible Study meetings in their homes on a rotating basis.
Those meetings have been put on hold as the legal system works out the process of what authority the town has to decide what legal things people can do in their own homes.
Good luck with that. People can do whatever they want in their homes including worshiping, holding Bible studies, and dying Easter Eggs and there is not a thing the government can do about it.
It is amazing that people are told what they can and cannot do in their own homes, the homes they are buying and paying for, and yet we as a society can’t tell people living in public housing to mow their own grass.
It is also a sure bet that if a group of Muslims were having meetings at a home they would not be bothered and if they were CAIR would be screaming about discrimination. After all, they have the right to build bomb vests in their own home and no one has the right to deny them that religious practice.
The folks in Gilbert AZ need to stand up to this and tell government to back off. What goes on in the home is none of government’s business.
Government is out of control…
SOurce:
WND
Tags: christianity ♦ gilbert arizona ♦ private home ♦ religion ♦ worship
How Could Eric Holder Forget This?
by Big Dog on Mar 13, 2010 at 14:26 Posted in Political 15 Comments
Attorney General and terrorist sympathizer Eric Holder seems to have neglected to include about seven legal briefs he signed in the packet of stuff he provided to the Senate when he went through the confirmation process.
I understand that a politician lawyer like Holder is busy and probably signs a lot of things but two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court. A lot of attorneys go through their entire career and do not submit stuff to the SCOTUS so one would think this is not the kind of stuff that would be forgotten. What else could make him neglect to send them?
Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an “enemy combatant.” al-Reuters
Oh, more on the terror support front, got it.
Holder is a little weasel. He has been involved in a number of pardons of bad people like Marc Rich, members of the FALN and of the Weather Underground (yes the Bill Ayers terrorist group). He is just a low life weasel who has little regard for the law and sees it more as a vehicle to enact social justice.
Yes, he has a sordid past and yes he deliberately withheld information from the Senate.
He is a pathetic little man who should resign his position and slither back under the rock he emerged from.
And he can save some room for that cretin Obama as well.
Other Holder hits:
OKC Bombing cover-up
Waco cover-up
Torture of US Citizen cover-up
How do we allow pieces of cow dung like this guy to be anywhere near our political system?
Tags: cover up ♦ eric holder ♦ ignorance ♦ lies ♦ murder ♦ torture
Michael Ramirez Cartoon Hits Nail On The Head
by Big Dog on Mar 13, 2010 at 12:37 Posted in Political 1 Comment
This cartoon is hilarious and absolutely true:
It accurately portrays what the health care takeover bill is doing to Democrats.
Be sure to click the link and see the cartoon. Obama Akbar…
Tags: cartoon ♦ michael ramirez ♦ obama akbar
Constitution Slaughters The Slaughter Solution
by Big Dog on Mar 13, 2010 at 10:28 Posted in Political Leave a comment
By now anyone with a head and who is not trying to rewrite history over this issue knows that the Democrats are working full speed ahead to pass unpopular legislation in order to take control of our lives by controlling our health care. They want to vote for Obama’s signature legislative item but they are worried about the ramifications of passing unpopular legislation especially in an election year.
It is a double edged sword because they need to pass it now because they will lose too many seats to pass it next year. But if they pass it now they will lose even more seats and Obama will have no future agenda because Republicans will not allow anything he wants to pass. It won’t get considered. This will be the price for ramming legislation through without following the Constitution. I bet then we hear Democrats scream about being left out of the process and how ham handed the Republicans are.
Anyone who complains should be locked in the basement so we do not have to hear them again. This would include Obama.
The most recent idea coming from Democrats is to consider a bill voted on and passed if another piece of legislation is passed. This is a way to avoid voting on the unpopular bill but getting what they want passed.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! Doug Ross
According to Constitutional Attorney Mark R Levin, this rule is unconstitutional. The House and Senate must vote on a bill and it must be sent to the president to be signed into law. So far, so good because they are voting on a bill but they are not voting on the bill that will become law and they are not voting in accordance with the Constitution:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively… [emphasis added]
In ALL cases the bills shall be voted on by Yeahs and Nays. They cannot vote on one rule change and say it means they voted on another bill. Every BILL (singular) must be voted on with yeahs and nays. Our Founders set this up for a reason.
Of course the Constitutionality of something has never stopped Democrats from doing what they wanted but I am pretty sure there will be a lot of legal challenges to any process that does not follow the Constitution and the legal process in accordance with the law.
Note to Democrats, just because you change the rules does not mean the rules adopted are Constitutional.
Here is a link to the US Constitution for those who are challenged in this area. It would be particularly nice if Politicians read this.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because the left is worried about the interpretation of the Senate Parliamentarian when it should be worried about the Constitution.
Can they use reconciliation to fix a bill that has not been agreed upon by both chambers? Don’t know but they cannot vote for a rule and say it counts as voting for a bill.
The other interesting thing that I see is Joe Biden has a big role in this as President of the Senate. This is the guy who scolded Dick Cheney and cited the wrong part of the Constitution when discussing the role of the VP. Seems that Biden was unaware that the VP has Executive and Legislative responsibility and that this is spelled out in the Constitution (it really helps to read it).
In any event, Biden might get a chance to learn what the VP is allowed to do.
Now it would be funny to see them do all of this only to have it nullified as unconstitutional, or declared not a law because they did not vote on a BILL. They would be back to square one and a lot closer to the election. They would never get another chance and that is a good thing.
Tags: constitution ♦ illegal ♦ joe biden ♦ Obama ♦ slaughter ♦ stock market ♦ usurp
Loading ...
Loading... 
